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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
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