Family court rules on high-profile international divorce

14 Feb 2025Court Report

Family Court addresses jurisdiction and forum in a high-profile international divorce involving substantial assets

Introduction

The Family Court, presided over by Sir Jonathan Cohen, recently delivered a judgment on the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and forum in a high-profile divorce case. The case involved the applicant wife, KV, and the respondent husband, KV [No. 2], both of whom are nationals of 'E country'. The central issues were whether the wife had the jurisdiction to apply for divorce in England and Wales based on her habitual residence and whether the English proceedings should be stayed in favour of the husband's later-filed divorce proceedings in 'E country'.

Background

The case involved a wealthy couple with significant international ties, including properties in England, 'E country', Switzerland, France, and the Caribbean. The wife filed for divorce in England in February 2024, citing her habitual residence in England. The husband, who had restructured his finances and moved assets into a trust, filed for divorce in 'E country' in March 2024.

Chronology

The couple married in 'E country' in 2009 and have three children. They moved to England in 2015, where the children attended school. The husband later moved to Switzerland, where he formed a new relationship. The wife's application for divorce was based on her claim of habitual residence in England, supported by factors such as the children's education and the family's lifestyle in England.

Legal Issues

The court considered the principles of habitual residence, which require a stable and habitual connection to a place. The wife argued that her and the children's lives were centred in England, while the husband contended that the family had no single habitual residence due to their international lifestyle.

Judgment

The court found that the wife was habitually resident in England at the time of her divorce application and for the preceding 12 months. The court noted the significant ties the family had to England, including the children's education and the wife's professional activities.

Forum Non Conveniens

The court also considered whether the English proceedings should be stayed in favour of the 'E country' proceedings. The court concluded that the husband failed to prove that 'E country' was a more appropriate forum, given the wife's established habitual residence in England and the lack of substantial assets in 'E country'.

Conclusion

The judgment highlights the complexities of international divorce cases, particularly when significant assets and multiple jurisdictions are involved. The court's decision to retain jurisdiction in England underscores the importance of habitual residence in determining the appropriate forum for divorce proceedings.