JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE MOOR:-1.I have to decide whether there was jurisdiction for the Petitioner, Svetlana Jourjevna Nicolaisen to apply in England and Wales for divorce on 14 September 2020. She says that her petition of that date is well founded. The Respondent, Bjorn Nicolaisen, asserts that there was no jurisdiction at that date and that the petition should be dismissed. If I find that there was jurisdiction, he applies for an order that I stay the petition on the basis that there are proceedings continuing in Norway and that the balance of fairness is such that it is appropriate for the proceedings in Norway to take precedence. I will refer to the parties as “the Wife” and “the Husband” respectively. I do so for the sake of convenience and do not mean any disrespect to either by so doing.
- JUDGMENT
- The relevant history
- Pierburg v Pierburg
- Z v Z
- The law I have to apply
- Rogers-Headicar v Headicar
- Marinos v Marinos
- V v V
- Pierburg
- IB v FA
- Burden and standard of proof
- Language barrier
- Lucas
- Marinos
- Discretionary stay
- de Dampierre v de Dampierre
- S v S
- C v C
- Ella v Ella
- Tan v Choy
- Otobo v Otobo
- The evidence that I heard
- My conclusions on habitual residence
- Stay
