The family were wealthy, and had lived for some time in Spain. On the breakdown of the marriage, the wife returned to the UK, and sought ancillary relief here, though the divorce had been in Spain. The husband argued that this should be dealt with by a Spanish court.
Held: The court could not understand why very substantial sums had already been spent on legal fees. The husband’s lawers had been unable to identify any substantial advantage which might arise from the claim being dealt with in Spain.
Judges:
Thorpe LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ, Munby J
Citations:
Times 25-Apr-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 361, [2007] 2 FLR 339, [2007] 2 FCR 353, [2007] Fam Law 698, [2007] ILPr 36
Links:
Statutes:
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – de Dampierre v de Dampierre HL 1988
The existence and state of foreign proceedings are relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion to stay an action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The essential test on which the court might exercise its discretion to stay the petition . .
Cited – Bentinck v Bentinck CA 6-Mar-2007
The court intervened to attempt to avoid further expenditure of huge sums in legal fees in resolving a sterile jurisdictional dispute for ancillary relief proceedings. Over pounds 330,000 had already been spent. . .
Cited – Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006
Fairness on Division of Family Capital
The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital.
Held: The 1973 Act . .
Cited – Overseas Union Insurance Ltd and others v New Hampshire Insurance Company ECJ 27-Jun-1991
ECJ Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that the rules applicable to lis alibi pendens . .
Cited – Krenge v Krenge 1999
The power in an English court to stay family proceedings here in favour of a foreign jurisdiction exists independently of any statute. . .
Cited – Van den Boogaard v Laumen ECJ 27-Feb-1997
ECJ If the reasoning of a decision rendered in divorce proceedings shows that the provision which it awards is designed to enable one spouse to provide for himself or herself, or if the needs and resources of . .
Cited – D v P (Forum Conveniens) FD 7-Oct-1998
Where parties had divorced here, but had previously entered into a separation agreement abroad, it was proper to stay the ancillary relief proceedings here, and prefer the jurisdiction where the agreement had been made. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Traversa v Freddi CA 14-Feb-2011
Jurisdiction in Cross border divorce
The parties had divorced in Italy. After the wife sought possession of her house in London where H lived, he appealed against refusal of leave to apply for an order under the 1984 Act, the court having found insufficient substantial grounds for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.251412