Summary
The parties were both British. They met in 1999, and got married on 5th May 2002.
In February 2003, they both moved to Spain, selling their English properties.
On 17th January 2007, the wife commenced divorce proceedings against the husband in the Liverpool County Court.
The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the English court by submitting that both parties were habitually resident in Spain. The central question which the judge had to determine was whether both parties maintained their domicile in England, or whether England was the habitual centre of the wife’s interest.
The judge dismissed the husband’s jurisdictional challenge, holding that both parties maintained their English domicile. In this context, Mr Justice Bennett made the following observation:
“62 Although the wife did obviously retain connections with England, for example her nationality and her family and frequent visits, the real focus, I find, of her life was with the husband in Spain. Accordingly, had the wife been unable to rely upon Article 3(1)(b) , ie the parties' common domicile in England, I would have dismissed the petition for want to jurisdiction. As it is, I find that the English court does have jurisdiction and thus the divorce and ancillary relief proceedings will continue here. I am relieved to be able to so find because the consequences of declining jurisdiction would have been a somewhat absurd situation, as I explained at the beginning of this judgment.” [62]
The judge went on to hold:
“6 [...] I must say that I have to suspect that,
as in Moore v Moore , the husband's attitude may be driven by tactical considerations, namely either to wear down the wife and/or in an expectation that a Spanish judge would award the wife significantly less financial provision than an English judge.” [6]