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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll