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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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...
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...
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