Summary
The parties to the divorce proceedings were a Greek husband and a Brazilian wife. They had two children.
The parties met in St Tropez, France, and married in 2003 in England where the husband was living at the time.
In July 2005, the parties left London for tax reasons, but it appeared that they intended to return to England.
The divorce proceedings were initiated under Article 3(1) by the wife.
The husband challenged jurisdiction.
The challenged was dismissed by the English High Court. Mr Justice Jackson noted:
“53 I find that the wife was habitually resident in London at the date of her petition. The evidence clearly establishes that it was the place where she had established, on a fixed basis, the habitual centre of her interests. Her home was in London. Most of her social set lives here. Her children had been going to school here. Her doctors and a number of other providers of services were here. Her interrupted course of studies was here. Almost all her belongings were here. The dogs were here.” [53]
It was further noted:
“61 Persistent failure to reach agreement has generated an absurd level of legal costs. I directed the parties to provide schedules of expenditure to date. The wife’s costs now amount to £425,000, of which £114,000 remains unpaid. The husband’s costs amount to £500,000, of which £63,000 remains unpaid. The overall bill to the family, now standing at £925,000, will no doubt top £1 million if next month’s hearing about the children goes ahead. It should be recalled that this level of expense has been incurred without a basis of jurisdiction having been established, or a page being filed in relation to the ultimate financial orders that will be required.” [61]