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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll