Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

J v A

[2023] EWFC 132
A couple is fighting over where to get divorced: England or Nigeria. The judge decided England is better because the family lives here, the kids are British, and the husband was trying to trick the court. So, the divorce will happen in England.

Key Facts

  • Husband and wife, legally married but religiously divorced in 2021, have competing divorce proceedings in Nigeria and England.
  • Husband applied to stay English divorce proceedings under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.
  • Husband's application was made due to alleged financial advantages in Nigerian jurisdiction and non-appearance in court due to claims of heart condition.
  • Wife disputes husband's claim and asserts England as the more convenient forum.
  • Husband's actions throughout the proceedings involved multiple attempts to delay or obstruct the English proceedings including providing allegedly falsified medical documents.
  • Wife is a UK resident with deep-rooted connections to England; Husband, while a Nigerian national, had also lived in the UK for an extended period.
  • Children were born in England and are UK nationals.
  • The family's primary connections and assets are in the UK.

Legal Principles

Jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition.

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, section 5(2)

Grounds for jurisdiction in divorce proceedings (habitual residence and domicile).

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, section 5(2) (amended)

Definition of 'habitual residence'.

Marinos v Marinos [2007] EWHC 2047 (Fam); Pierburg v Pierburg [2019] EWFC 24; Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen [2022] EWFC 70

Principles of domicile.

Pierburg v Pierburg [2019] EWFC 24; Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577

Stay of proceedings where competing proceedings are in another jurisdiction.

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, Schedule 1, paragraph 9

Factors considered in determining a stay application (balance of fairness, convenience, witness convenience, delay, expense).

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, Schedule 1, paragraph 9(2); Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460; de Dampierre v de Dampierre [1987] 2 FLR 300; Tan v Choy [2014] EWCA Civ 251; Chai v Peng [2014] EWHC 3518 (Fam); Peng v Chai [2015] EWCA Civ 1312; SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115

Outcomes

Husband's application to stay English divorce proceedings dismissed.

England is the more convenient forum due to the family's significant and long-standing connections with the jurisdiction, outweighing the factors cited by the husband.

Husband's challenge to the court's jurisdiction dismissed.

The court found it had jurisdiction based on the habitual residence and domicile of the parties in England.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.