David Hodson and Stuart Clark, partners at The International Family Law Group LLP, explore the concepts of residence and habitual residence in the context of Indents 5 and 6 of Article 3(1) of the Brussels II Regulation. These indents, commonly used by so-called forum shoppers seeking jurisdiction to issue divorce proceedings in England and Wales, use separate but overlapping concepts of residence and habitual residence. What do these terms mean? What is required for the six or twelve months prior to the date of issue? This article explores these issues in light of case law since Marinos and Munro in 2007 bringing in recent developments, including the missed opportunity in De Gafforj and the judgment of Moor J in Pierburg. These concepts must be seen in the international dimension in which they have come in to use in English law and this article goes on to discuss residence and habitual residence in an EU context including the apparent differences linguistically and in practice across the member states.