Summary
The divorce proceedings were initiated by the wife in November 2013.
The parties were married in 1970. In 1976, they moved to live in England. The husband was very wealthy, using offshore trusts as a form of his assets protection. Also, they purchased some expensive properties in England.
In 1996, a property was purchase on the wife’s sole name; the property was worth £15 million.
In 2002, they were considering to relocate to France, but the wife argued that they continued to be firmly based in London.
In 2011, the parties decided to separate, and the wife started to spend more time in Austria where she had a property.
The relationships deteriorated further in 2013, when the wife filed her divorce petition in England.
The jurisdiction of the English court was challenged by the husband.
The jurisdictional challenge was dismissed. Mr Justice Mostyn noted:
“14 […] the Brussels 2 regulation, in my view, certainly permits forum shopping. It could be
argued that it encourages forum shopping, inasmuch as it does not contain, in relation to a suit for divorce, a provision to transfer the suit to a court better placed to hear the case, unlike proceedings in relation to children, where such a provision exists under Article 15 […].” [14]
The High Court judge went on to hold that:
“19 […]Inasmuch as the wife relies on her habitual residence here, I am provisionally satisfied that it is a weak case indeed and, on the present state of the material before me, is more likely than not to fail.
20 However, the wife does not simply rely on her own habitual residence, as I have explained. She pleads that, in the period immediately before the date of her petition (8th November 2013), the husband was habitually resident here. She also claims that this was the territory where the spouses were last habitually residence, insofar as one of them still resides here.
21 So far as the husband's position is concerned, in the 12-month period before the date of the wife's petition, he had spent, excluding transit and medical days, 83 days in the UK. In addition to that, he had spent 28 transit and medical days, so that he spent over 110 days in this jurisdiction; that was far more than he spent in any other jurisdiction. The next competitor is the Lebanon, with 79 days, followed by France, with 74 days. So, although the exercise is not one of counting days alone, the fact is that, in the 12-month period, the husband spent more time in this jurisdiction than in any other individual jurisdiction. But, beyond that, it does seem — and I only speak again provisionally — that the husband continues to maintain a significant infrastructural operation here, and that, so much so, I tend to agree — again, as I say, I speak only provisionally – it appears that the husband's centre of interests was at 8th November 2013, certainly arguably, could be regarded as being in this country.
22 I take the view that, in relation to the husband's residence, the wife here has an arguable case, possibly even a strongly arguable case, and, in such circumstances, I do not think it would be proper for me to discount her maintenance pending suit claim or otherwise to act conservatively by reference to that factor.” [19-22]