In V v W [2024] EWFC 111, Mr. Justice Poole of the Family Court ruled on whether the court in England and Wales has jurisdiction to dissolve a French pacte civil de solidarité (PACS). The case centered on whether the Applicant, V, was domiciled in England or France at the time of filing the application. The court ultimately found that V had acquired a domicile of choice in France, negating the jurisdiction of the Family Court in England. Additionally, the court considered whether France was the appropriate forum for the dissolution and found that it was, given the parties' strong connections to France. The judgment underscores the complexity of international family law matters and the significance of domicile in determining jurisdiction.
Case Overview:
Case Name: V v W (Jurisdiction: Dissolution of Pacte Civil de Solidarité)
Court: Family Court Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice
Judgment Date: 23 May 2024
Judge: Mr. Justice Poole
Keywords: Jurisdiction, Dissolution, PACS, Domicile, Forum Non Conveniens
Legal Issues:
Jurisdiction:
The primary legal issue was whether the Family Court in England and Wales had jurisdiction to dissolve a French pacte civil de solidarité (PACS), which is treated as an "overseas relationship" under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The determination hinged on whether the Applicant, V, was domiciled in England and Wales or France at the time of filing the application.
Forum Conveniens:
The secondary issue was whether, even if the court had jurisdiction, France would be the more appropriate forum for the dissolution of the PACS, given the parties' long-standing residence and ties to France.
Court’s Analysis:
Domicile Determination: The court examined V's long-term residence in France, his strong personal and professional ties to the country, and the fact that he had lived in France for over 16 years. Despite V's assertions of maintaining connections with England, the court found that V had acquired a domicile of choice in France by the end of 2016 at the latest. This finding precluded the court in England and Wales from assuming jurisdiction.
Forum Conveniens: Even if V had retained his English domicile, the court considered whether England or France was the appropriate forum for the dissolution. The court found that France, where both parties were habitually resident and where the PACS was registered, was the more suitable jurisdiction for the dissolution proceedings.
Judgment Summary:
Mr. Justice Poole concluded that the Applicant, V, had acquired a domicile of choice in France, meaning that the Family Court in England and Wales lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the PACS. Furthermore, the court found that France was the more appropriate forum for the dissolution, given the strong connections both parties had to the country. The judgment highlights the importance of domicile in international family law disputes and the role of forum non conveniens in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for legal proceedings.
Implications:
This judgment is significant for understanding how the English courts approach jurisdictional challenges in cases involving international civil partnerships like the French PACS. It emphasizes the necessity for clear evidence of domicile and the court's preference for the forum most closely connected to the dispute when determining jurisdiction.
References:
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577
Re Fuld (No. 3) [1968] P 675
For full details, refer to the published judgment.
Comments