Friday, July 27, 2007

Smug post

Just a quick footnote to my rant about the misuse of the term 'registry office' from a few months back. Today I found out that the divorce petition in one of my matters (prepared by the other side I hasten to add) was rejected by the court, one of the reasons being that the term 'registry office' had been used when it should be 'register office'. So perhaps I wasn't just being pedantic after all...
Posted by John Bolch at 9:22 AM
Labels:

4 comments:

  1. Good grief?! Take it to the CA
    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I did wonder if it would still have been rejected if there was nothing else wrong with it...
    ReplyDelete
  3. Victor DewsberyJul 28, 2007 09:09 AM
    Your judge would have to rule a sizeable proportion of the British registration services out of order, too. (See my comment on your "rant").

    What is the difference between a prescriptivist and Sisyphus?
    (Any suggestions?)
    ReplyDelete
  4. The point about the judge requiring the petition to be amended is that that paragraph in the petition must match the wording in the marriage certificate, which obviously it did not.

    As for your question, I'll leave that to someone more learned than me to answer!
    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)