Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
View all articles
Authors

Magiera v Magiera [2016] EWCA Civ 1292

Sep 29, 2018, 19:37 PM
Property – Jurisdiction – BIIA, Art 22
The husband’s appeal as to jurisdiction was dismissed.
Slug : magiera-v-magiera-2016-ewca-civ-1292
Meta Title : Magiera v Magiera [2016] EWCA Civ 1292
Meta Keywords : Property – Jurisdiction – BIIA, Art 22
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 9, 2017, 10:56 AM
Article ID : 113562

(Court of Appeal, Black, Sales, Irwin LJJ, 15 December 2016)

Property – Jurisdiction – BIIA, Art 22

The husband’s appeal as to jurisdiction was dismissed.

The husband and wife owned a number of properties in Europe including a house in London. When they moved to Poland in 1991 that property was rented out. They separated in 2001 and the wife initiated divorce proceedings in France.

In 2014 the wife applied to the English court for an order for sale of the London property pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and for the proceeds of sale to be distributed between her and the husband in equal shares. The husband contested the jurisdiction of the English court and applied for the proceedings to be stayed or dismissed.

The judge rejected the husband’s case and held that under Art 22 of Brussels IIA the court had jurisdiction on the basis that the proceedings had, as their object, rights in rem in immovable property situation in England or under Art 5(6) as the husband was being sued as a settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of the statute and that the trust was domiciled there. The judge further held that there had been no prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of the Polish courts. The husband was ordered to pay the wife’s costs and those costs would be charged on the husband’s share of the property. The husband appealed.

The appeal as to jurisdiction was dismissed but the charging order would be discharged.

The judge had been correct to distinguish the case from Webb v Webb (C-294/92) since the wife was already a joint owner of the property. The purpose of the claim was to achieve a sale of the property and it would be wrong to put too much weight on the fact that the wife’s application was under s 14 of the Act for an order relating to the exercise by a trustee of his functions. The wife was seeking to protect the powers attached to her interest by bringing about a transfer of a right of ownership in the house via sale. When viewing the matter as a whole it was clear that the considerations set out in Art 22 (1) applied here. The wife’s application had, as their object, rights in rem in immovable property and, therefore, Art 22(1) conferred jurisdiction on the English court.

The wife conceded that the charging order should not have been made.


Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1292
Case No: B6/2015/2390

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION
MR JUSTICE BODEY
FD14F00345
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 15/12/2016

Before:

LADY JUSTICE BLACK
LORD JUSTICE SALES
and
LORD JUSTICE IRWIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

EDWARD JAN MAGIERA
Appellant

- and -

EVE TERESE MAGIERA
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Michael Horton & Mr Alexander Laing (instructed by Dawson Cornwell) for the Appellant
Mr Tim Amos QC & Ms Saima Younis (instructed by Howard Kennedy) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 1st November 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment Approved

Magiera v Magiera [2016] EWCA Civ 1292.rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Property
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from