Key Facts
- •British nationals FC and WC, in a long-term relationship, entered into a French PACS (civil partnership) in 2019.
- •They returned to England in 2022 and sought to dissolve the PACS to enter a UK civil partnership.
- •The UK General Register Office (GRO) refused to recognize the French PACS dissolution due to lack of habitual residence, domicile, or nationality in France at the time of dissolution.
- •The couple applied to the Family Court for a declaration confirming the PACS dissolution.
- •The court considered the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) and its inherent jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Recognition of overseas dissolution of a civil partnership under the CPA 2004.
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Declarations relating to civil partnerships under the CPA 2004.
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Jurisdiction of the court to entertain applications for declarations regarding civil partnerships.
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make declarations.
Case law
Public policy considerations in refusing declarations.
Case law (Al Saleh v Nakeeb)
The effect of non-recognition of a foreign dissolution is to create a 'limping' relationship. Courts lean against such an outcome, so far as possible and consistent with the legislation and justice.
Case law (Botwe v Brifa, Olafisoye v Olafisoye, Liaw v Lee)
Outcomes
The court refused to grant a declaration under section 58(1)(d) CPA 2004 recognizing the validity of the French PACS dissolution because the couple did not meet the habitual residence, domicile, or nationality requirements in France at the time of dissolution.
The couple failed to meet the criteria set out in section 235 of the CPA 2004.
The court granted a declaration under section 58(1)(c) CPA 2004 that the civil partnership did not subsist after 10 March 2023.
The requirements for domicile, habitual residence, and nationality in section 235 do not apply to declarations under section 58(1)(c). The court found no public policy reasons to refuse the declaration and the evidence of dissolution was sufficient.
The court made a further declaration under its inherent jurisdiction that the parties were not currently married or civil partners in any jurisdiction and were free to enter into a marriage or civil partnership in England and Wales.
This declaration was made to address the practical issue of preventing the couple from entering into a new civil partnership despite the effective dissolution of the PACS. The court considered the couple's Article 8 and 12 ECHR rights, their good faith, and the lack of opposition to the application.