header-logo header-logo

Decrees of separation

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

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 Poland),

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll