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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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