header-logo header-logo

26 September 2019 / Stuart Webber
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , EU , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Decrees of separation

Jurisdiction & habitual residence: Pierburg v Pierburg has provided some clarity, but for how long? Stuart Webber investigates

  • The courts have provided conflicting authorities on determining jurisdiction upon marital breakdown where one or more party has an international connection.
  • The possibility of a no-deal Brexit will also impact upon the question of jurisdiction in such cases.

The first question family lawyers often have to consider when advising clients with international connections is whether the English court will have jurisdiction to deal with any divorce. International families may have a close connection to two, three or perhaps more countries within or outside the EU. Upon marital breakdown, practitioners and the courts regularly have to unravel thorny factual histories to resolve questions of jurisdiction. International clients, and their lawyers, are not helped in this endeavour by conflicting authorities from the courts.

In the case of Pierburg v Pierburg [2019] EWFC 24, [2019] All ER (D) 87 (Apr), the court was faced with a German family who lived in England and Switzerland (and had roots in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll