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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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