header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 September 2011 / Holly Sautelle-smith
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Jet-set jurisdiction

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

English courts have clarified the habitual residence rule for divorce petitions, observes Holly Sautelle-Smith

The recent case of V v V [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 210 (May) offers a further discussion and clarification of the concepts of residence and habitual residence under Art 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II Revised).


Background to V v V

The wife had been brought up in Brazil but attended schools in the US and Switzerland. She then spent periods of time in Paris, London and New York before meeting the husband in 2001 in St Tropez. The husband is a member of a Greek shipping family and has also travelled the world extensively throughout his life. 

The wife issued her petition in England on 1 April 2011. The stated basis for jurisdiction was indent 5 of Art 3(1)(a) of Brussels II Revised: “In matters relating to divorce…jurisdiction shall lie with the
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll