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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll