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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

Sharon Eden: Forum Shopping: Marinos v Marinos

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : sharon-eden-forum-shopping-marinos-v-marinos
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 4, 2008, 11:38 AM
Article ID : 85027

Sharon Eden, Solicitor

In the UK case Marinos v Marinos [2007] EWHC 2047, [2007], Mr Justice Munby provided some clarity to a concept which was yet to be challenged in the matrimonial courts: the meaning and scope of 'habitual residence', and 'residence' under Art 3 of Council Regulation No 2201/2203, generally known as Brussels II Revised. When jurisdictional issues come into play, the lawyers will move onto other clauses under Art 3 (1), the last of which, (f), entitles a spouse to file a petition with the courts of the Member State of 'the habitual residence of the applicant provided that he or she has resided there for at least 6 months before making the application and he or she is a national of that Member State'. The facts of this case led to a rethink of the meaning and scope of this clause.

In this article Sharon Eden evaluates the decision of Marinos and the implications on the jurisdiction of international divorces. For the full article see [2008] International Family Law, Issue 1.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

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