The law I have to apply
43.I will deal first with habitual residence. Pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, jurisdiction in relation to divorce shall lie with the courts of the Member State:-(a)In whose territory:-i.the spouses are habitually resident; orii.the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there; oriii.the respondent is habitually resident; oriv.in the event of a joint application, either of the spouses is habitually resident; orv.the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was made; orvi.the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and….in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her “domicile” there;(b) ….in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, of the “domicile” of both spouses.44.The only ground pleaded for jurisdiction in this case is “indent” 5, namely that the Wife is habitually resident here if she resided here for at least a year immediately before the application was made. 45.I have to be satisfied about jurisdiction (see
- 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
