Summary
The parties both lived in Holland. The husband was born in England. The wife was born in China. They had both lived in England before moving to Holland.
The divorce proceedings were initiated by the husband in England in July 2012.
Parallel divorce proceedings were initiated by the wife in Holland in September 2012.
Although the English court was first seised, the wife challenged its jurisdiction, arguing that she was not domiciled in England on 17th May 2012 when the husband filed the divorce petition.
The English High Court upheld the wife’s jurisdictional challenge, and ruled accordingly. Mr Justice Moor held:
“5 This court has jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings if (and only if) the court has jurisdiction under the Council Regulation or no court of a Contracting State has jurisdiction under the Council Regulation and either of the parties to the marriage is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings were begun.
6 There is no doubt that the Netherlands has jurisdiction pursuant to the Council Regulation as it is accepted that both spouses are habitually resident there. It follows that, for this court to have jurisdiction as well, it is necessary for the Husband to establish that both spouses were domiciled here on the date he issued his petition.
7 It is agreed that, despite his habitual residence in the Netherlands, the Husband remains domiciled here by virtue of his domicile of origin. He was born in this country and is a British citizen.
8 The issue concerns the domicile of the Wife. […]
[…]
39 I have come to the clear conclusion that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this divorce petition. I have reached this conclusion because I am quite satisfied that, even if the Wife obtained a domicile of choice here following her marriage, she had not retained it at the date of the Husband's divorce petition.” [5-8 and 39]