Summary
The parties to the divorce proceedings were both Swedish nationals who had been living in England for 15 years or so.
They had two children who were both born in England.
There were parallel divorce proceedings in England and Sweden, respectively.
The question was whether the English court was first seised. The question was answered in affirmative, and the English court assumed jurisdiction. Mr Justice Holman noted that:
“4 The reason why the issue arises is patently one of tactical manoeuvring by each of these parties in which, as I have been told today, they have now jointly invested around £120,000 to £130,000 in legal fees. As such, a divorce in either England or Sweden would be just as effective and just as appropriate as a means of dissolving their marriage. But each patently shares a common belief (whether correct or not) that the wife would receive greater financial provision if the divorce is here than if it is in Sweden.” [4]
With this in mind, the English judge held:
“44 In my view I should adopt the simplest of approaches. Indeed, courts (at any rate of first instance) should be able to apply the Article (the words of which are straightforward and clear) swiftly and without the sort of detailed legal analysis which has been deployed and argued in the present case. These types of case ought to be a one-hour and not (as was estimated and allowed) a three-day hearing, although a significant part of the time in the present case related to the discrete Sunday service point. I ask two questions. First: when was the document initiating the proceedings lodged? Answer: on 17th January, 2008 or, if the revival with the supplemental petition is relied upon, 12th November, 2009. Second: has the wife subsequently failed to take the steps she was required to take to have service effected on the husband? Answer: No. In my opinion she actually took steps fully and effectively to effect service on each of the Sundays — 27th January, 2008 and 15th November, 2009. But even if that be wrong, she very promptly and timeously effected perfect and wholly regular service on Wednesday, 18th November, 2009, and as and from that date at the very latest it is possible to say that the wife has not subsequently failed to take the required steps.
45 I thus conclude with no hesitation or doubt at all in my mind that the English court was seised on either 17th January, 2009, when the petition was first issued, or alternatively, and at the very latest, on Thursday, 12th November, 2009, when the supplemental petition was issued and the suit revived after the unsuccessful reconciliation and period of resumed co-habitation. On each basis the English court is the first seised. I hold, for the purpose of Article 19.3 of the regulation that the jurisdiction of the Principal Registry of the Family Division in proceedings no. FD08D00207, as the court first seised, is established. This court is not required to decline jurisdiction under Article 19.3. I remove the stay which was imposed in paragraph 1 of the order dated 14th December, 2009. I re-transfer these proceedings to the Principal Registry of the Family Division to continue there in the ordinary way.
46 I have reached all my conclusions in this case without hesitation or doubt, or, frankly, even difficulty, and consider that on another occasion a case such as this could, and should, be much more rapidly and economically resolved. I nevertheless appreciated and, if I may say so, enjoyed the sustained and attractive arguments of each of Mr. Le Grice, QC and Mr. Marks, QC, most ably supported by their juniors. I thank them all.” [44-46]