Key Facts
- •Dispute between a wife (VS) and husband (KS) regarding the jurisdiction for their divorce proceedings.
- •Husband initiated proceedings in Monaco on February 16, 2022.
- •Wife initiated proceedings in London on September 30, 2022.
- •The husband applied for a stay of the wife's petition for divorce and financial applications.
- •The parties had lived in Monaco, Malibu, and London during their marriage.
- •The Monaco court ruled it had jurisdiction, finding the last marital home was in Monaco.
- •The wife did not appeal the Monaco court's decision.
- •The husband's Monaco lawyers offered to proceed with a no-fault divorce (Article 198 of the Civil Code).
Legal Principles
Discretionary Stays in divorce proceedings
Schedule 1, paragraph 9(1) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973
Factors considered in determining a discretionary stay (balance of fairness and convenience)
Schedule 1, paragraph 9(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973; De Dampierre v De Dampierre [1987] 2 FLR 300; Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460; Chai v Peng [2014] EWHC 3519 (Fam); SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115
Assessment of truthfulness in evidence
R v Lucas [1982] QB 720
Outcomes
Conditional stay of divorce and financial remedy proceedings in England and Wales granted.
The court found Monaco to be the forum with the most real and substantial connection to the parties. The husband had not established habitual residence in England and Wales. The conditional stay is based on neither party using the fault-based divorce procedure in Monaco. If either does, the court will revisit its decision.