Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

DIVORCE/JURISDICTION: Munro v Munro [2007] EWHC 3315 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : munro-v-munro-2007-ewhc-3315-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 19, 2007, 06:11 AM
Article ID : 86995

(Family Division; Bennett J; 19 November 2007)

The husband and wife married in England; shortly afterwards they moved to Spain but retained English passports and English property. A few years later the wife filed for divorce in England. The husband claimed that the couple were habitually resident in Spain, and had acquired domicile in that country.

The husband had failed to establish that the wife had lost her domicile of origin or had acquired a domicile of choice in Spain. The English court had jurisdiction to hear the wife's divorce petition. Brussels II Revised, art 3(1)(a), fifth and sixth indents, sought to compel the court, in assessing the connection of the applicant to the jurisdiction sought to be embraced, to look at two fundamentals. The first was whether the applicant was a national of the relevant member state, or in the case of the UK and Ireland whether the applicant was domiciled there. Second, the Regulation was at pains to make it clear that what else was required to establish jurisdiction in the UK was the habitual residence of the applicant.

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