Case No. ZC20D00020

[2004] EWCA Civ 1867). It follows that the court’s jurisdiction does not depend on the pleadings. In closing submissions, Mr Todd, on behalf of the Wife, tentatively suggested that I could also consider indent 6, namely whether the Wife was domiciled here by the relevant date and had been habitually resident here if she had resided for at least six months immediately before the application was made. Mr Yates, on behalf of the Husband, objected strenuously. He pointed out that this had not been raised at any time prior to closing submissions. In consequence, there had been no evidence at all directed to the question of the Wife’s domicile. He had asked her no questions on the topic and, for example, there had not been disclosure of her tax returns to show what she had told HMRC about her domicile. I consider he is entirely correct about that. If I was even contemplating deciding the case on the basis of domicile, I would have had to have adjourned for the evidence on that aspect to be gathered and tested. I remind myself that the Wife even made reference in her statement to the fact that the third petition would make the job of the court easier as she was not pleading domicile. It follows that I am quite satisfied that I should deal only with indent 5, the indent pleaded and decide the case on that basis. 46.When I decided the case of Pierburg v Pierburg (above), there was a dispute between the parties as to what needs to be established to satisfy indent 5. After extensive argument, I came to the clear conclusion that the dicta in the cases of