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 allowing the application to go ahead.
Held: Leave was granted. The judge had refused leave on the basis of the law as it then applied, but Lord Collins in Agbaje had restated the law and the application must be looked at anew. The gloss added by Mostyn J in CG was unjustified: ‘the section 13 filter is there to exclude plainly unmeritorious cases and, although, in the evaluation of substance, regard must be paid to overall merits, it does not call for a rigorous evaluation of all the circumstances that would be considered once the application has passed through the filter.’ Sufficiently substantial grounds had been shown here to allow the application to proceed. Furthermore, applying Boogard, Regulation Brussels I cannot be invoked as the basis for the exclusive exercise of jurisdiction in relation to the property consequences of divorce.
Applications for leave should continue to be heard initially ex parte pending the new rules.

Thorpe, Rimer, Munby LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 81, [2011] Fam Law 464
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 Part III, Regulation Brussels I
England and Wales
CitedRadmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino SC 20-Oct-2010
The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, . .
CitedAgbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had divorced in Nigeria, but the former wife now sought relief in the UK under section 10 of the 194 Act. The wife said that she lived here, but the order made in Nigeria was severely detrimental requiring her either to live here in . .
CitedVan 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 . .
CitedA Elaine Jordan v Roy Gregory Jordan Admn 12-Jul-1999
The parties had married and divorced and made a financial settlement in the US, but the husband had returned to live in the UK. The wife now sought in effect to enforce the balance of the US order here. . .
CriticisedCG v IF FD 12-May-2010
The husband sought an order under section 13 after the parties had been divorced in Switzerland. . .
CitedAl-Khatib v Masry FD 2002
The court heard an application for an ancillary relief order in divorce proceedings.
Held: General reputation prevailing in the community, and the mere opinions, inferences or beliefs of witnesses, are inadmissible in proof of material facts. . .
CitedMoore v Moore CA 20-Apr-2007
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.428865