Family Court Rules No Jurisdiction in AN v NO [2024] EWFC 94: Divorce to Proceed in European Country

In AN v NO [2024] EWFC 94, the Family Court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition filed by the wife (W) in England and Wales. The case centered on whether W had acquired a domicile of choice in England, allowing the court to have jurisdiction. However, Sir Jonathan Cohen concluded that W’s presence in England was temporary and tied to her children's education, not a permanent residence, and that the family’s stronger ties were with the European Country, where concurrent divorce proceedings are ongoing. The petition was dismissed, and the case is set to proceed in the European Country.

Case Overview:

• Case Name: AN v NO

• Court: Family Court, Royal Courts of Justice

• Judgment Date: 9 May 2024

• Judge: Sir Jonathan Cohen

• Keywords: Jurisdiction Dispute, Divorce, Domicile of Choice, Forum Non Conveniens, European Country

Legal Issues:

Jurisdiction:

The primary issue was whether the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction over W's divorce petition. Under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, jurisdiction could only be established if W had acquired a domicile of choice in England, which requires clear and compelling evidence of an intention to reside permanently or indefinitely.

Forum Non Conveniens:

The court also considered whether, even if it had jurisdiction, England was the most appropriate forum (forum conveniens) for the divorce proceedings, given that parallel proceedings had already commenced in the European Country.

Court’s Analysis:

• Domicile of Choice: The court found that W’s ties to England were insufficient to establish a domicile of choice. Her time in England was closely tied to her children's education rather than an intention to reside permanently. The court noted W’s stronger connections to the European Country, where the family had their primary residence and where W's parents and family pets resided.

• Forum Conveniens: Although not necessary to the final decision, the court indicated that even if jurisdiction were established, the European Country would be the more appropriate forum due to the stronger connections of the family to that jurisdiction and the significant assets located there.

Judgment Summary:

The court dismissed W’s petition, ruling that England and Wales do not have jurisdiction over the divorce. The case will continue in the European Country, where proceedings had already been initiated by the husband (H). The decision highlights the importance of proving a permanent or indefinite intention to reside in a country to establish domicile, particularly in international divorce cases.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the complexities involved in jurisdictional disputes in international divorce cases and the stringent requirements for establishing domicile of choice. It also illustrates the challenges of forum shopping and the court's careful consideration of the most appropriate forum based on the facts of the case.

References:

• Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973

• Cyganik v Agulian [2006] EWCA Civ 129

• Kelly v Pyres [2018] EWCA Civ 1368

For full details, refer to the published judgment.