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...
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : moore-v-moore-2007-ewca-civ-361
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 20, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85791

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Collins LJJ and Munby J; 20 April 2007)

Less than a year after the English couple moved to Spain, the husband filed for divorce in Spain, but did not invoke the financial jurisdiction of the Spanish court. Two days later the wife filed her divorce petition in London. The wife's English petition was stayed, under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 1347/2000 (Brussels II); the wife duly participated in the Spanish divorce proceedings, but did not apply in Spain for financial relief. Although at the hearing of the divorce the husband proposed a financial settlement of about £7.55m, the Spanish court did not make an order because no claim had been made in the petition or the answer. The husband later made an application to the Spanish court for adjustments of wealth or assets, still offering the wife assets to the value of about £7.55 million. Meanwhile in England the wife was granted permission ex parte to apply for financial relief after an overseas divorce, under Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Pt III. Subsequently the Spanish court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the husband's adjustments of wealth application, and the husband appealed. In England, the husband failed to have the ex parte Pt III permission set aside, and appealed, arguing that his application in Spain, still pending appeal, was an application relating to maintenance, ancillary to the divorce, and therefore entitled to priority under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I), and also that permission under Part III was bound to be refused because the wife had not sought ancillary relief in the Spanish divorce proceedings, although she could have done so. No date had yet been fixed for the husband's Spanish appeal. If the Spanish court were to consider the couple's financial claims, it would do so by applying English law, because both were English nationals. By the time the case was heard by the Court of Appeal, the total spent by the parties in the two jurisdictions to date was about £1.5 million.

The husband's Spanish application had related not to maintenance, but to division of the wealth or assets in which the couple had a claim, and therefore was not governed by Brussels I. The court expressed the view, obiter, that although under Brussels I a judgment was final even if an appeal was pending, Art 27 of Brussels I, giving priority to the court first seised, applied until the proceedings in the court first seised were finally determined in relation to its jurisdiction, that is until any appeal had been concluded. When granting the wife permission to apply under Pt III, the judge had been entitled to treat the connection with the English jurisdiction as overwhelming and had given proper weight to the wife's failure to make an application in Spain, which was not the only or automatically determinative factor. The judge's approach had, if anything, been unduly favourable to the husband and the court considered that it was highly relevant that the parties' connections with, respectively, England and Spain, were such that the Spanish court treated the law of England and Wales as being the relevant governing law. In cases involving overlapping proceedings in different jurisdictions there should be someone on each team co-ordinating the proceedings, with an understanding of what was going on, able to inform both courts of the progress in the other jurisdiction.

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