BR-2024-000795 - [2025] EWHC 2652 (Ch)

The fact that oral submissions on behalf of Mr Jones did not address COMI but relied solely upon the existence of unchallenged domicile is understandable. Mr Jones’s claims to COMI in his witness statement cannot stand against the evidence that he has resided in Austria since about 2012, continuing to do so after the divorce, up to and after the Bankruptcy Order. The Austrian Property is his home and main asset together with his two businesses. It was and remains where his two businesses were/are carried on producing his day income. His accountants are in Austria. Although he asserts COMI within this jurisdiction he provides no evidence of regular administration of his interests through management, organisation and control within this jurisdiction. He provides no evidence of creditors having notice of this jurisdiction being his centre of main interests as opposed to his place of residence and business. I am satisfied from the evidence before me that it was not. The position is so clear that I need not dwell further on it other than to note that I accept the further submissions of Ms Macro at paragraphs 116-118 of her skeleton argument.