Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
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