Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles

DIVORCE/ JURISDICTION: Olafisoye v Olafisoye [2010] EWHC 3539 (Fam) and [2010] EWHC 3540 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:03 PM
Slug : 2010EWHC3539
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 3, 2011, 08:20 AM
Article ID : 93711

(Family Division; Holman J; 19 February 2010 and 28 July 2010)

The parties were married in Nigeria. The husband was neither domiciled nor habitually resident in England, however the wife was born in Scotland of Nigerian parents and settled in England (which had become their domicile of choice). The wife's domicile of origin was therefore England. While she was still a minor her father reverted to his original domicile in Nigeria so wife's domicile of dependence became Nigeria. At issue was the jurisdiction of the English court to entertain divorce proceedings brought by the wife in 2005 and the recognition of a Nigerian judgment purporting to grant a divorce.

The English court had jurisdiction to hear the wife's application. Recognition of the Nigerian divorce would be refused on the basis that the husband had not taken or caused to be taken such steps as should reasonably have been taken to give notice of the Nigerian proceedings to the wife. Although the court should be slow to exercise its discretion under Family Law Act 1986 S51(3)(a), on the facts of this case it was appropriate to do so.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from