Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

JURISDICTION: Jefferson v O’Connor [2014] EWCA Civ 38

Sep 29, 2018, 19:00 PM
Slug : jurisdiction-jefferson-v-oconnor-2014-ewca-civ-38
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 7, 2014, 03:01 AM
Article ID : 104665

(Court of Appeal, Rimer, McFarlane, Vos LJJ, 28 January 2014)

When the marriage broke down after 3 years the wife issued divorce proceedings in England and the husband arranged for divorce proceedings by mutual consent to be issued in Spain. During the marriage the parties lived in Spain and upon separation the wife returned to the UK. A hearing took place to determine which set of proceedings took precedence in accordance with BIIR.

In the High Court the judge determined that the English proceedings should be stayed on the basis that the wife had agreed to abandon the English proceedings and she was now estopped from submitting that those proceedings were still extant. The wife appealed.

The power to stay divorce proceedings by virtue of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1984 was subject to the provisions of BIIR. Art 19 of BIIR was clear that where there were two sets of divorce proceedings in Member States which were parties to BIIR, where the jurisdiction of the court first seised was established, the court second seised would decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. Further, the wife was not estopped from asserting the English jurisdiction as BIIR inhibited such a process. The judge was wrong to stay the proceedings. The wife's appeal was allowed and her divorce petition reinstated. 

 

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