Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles

DIVORCE: F v F (Divorce: Jurisdiction) [2009] EWHC 1448 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : f-v-f-divorce-jurisdiction-2009-ewhc-1448-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 25, 2009, 09:11 AM
Article ID : 89305

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 25 June 2009)

The husband and wife were both Libyan by birth. For political reasons they moved to England, intending to settle there, but within a few months, feeling unsafe, they moved to Egypt. However, as a Libyan the husband was unable to work or run a business in Egypt, and the family were able to remain there only on temporary visas. Two of the couple's children moved back to Europe, eventually choosing England as a base. After 10 years in Egypt the whole family obtained asylum in England, purchased a home in England, and eventually became naturalised British citizens. Thereafter, however, both husband and wife continued to spend considerable periods in Egypt; the wife was based in Egypt for a considerable period when one of the children was taken there for health reasons. The wife issued divorce proceedings in England at a time when she was dividing her time between Egypt, England and Northern Ireland. The husband issued divorce proceedings in Egypt. The husband argued that the English court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the wife's divorce petition, which was based on either habitual residence or domicile. In the alternative the husband sought a stay of the English proceedings pending the outcome of the Egyptian proceedings. The judge decided that the wife had not been habitually resident in England for some years, but accepted that England was the wife's domicile of choice, and that this founded jurisdiction in the English court. The husband appealed.

The wife's case on domicile had been proved; the move to England had involved the acquisition of a domicile of choice in England and the wife's long term desire and intention had since then been to remain based in England, albeit that the needs of the children might take her elsewhere on a temporary basis. Although the wife's case as to the extent and duration of her time spent in England as originally advanced had been inaccurate and exaggerated, and she had not satisfied the court that she had been resident in England for at least a year prior to the filing of the petition, the wife had established that she had been physically resident in the UK for some 4 months prior to the filing of her petition, and that she had remained so since. Although the wife had not satisfied the requirement of 6 months of residence prior to the petition, no court of any member state of the EU had jurisdiction under Brussels II Revised, and therefore the English court had jurisdiction by the domicile route. So far as the application for a stay was concerned, the husband had not even established that the Egyptian court had jurisdiction to hear his divorce proceedings, and his application for a stay would be rejected.

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