J v U; U v J (No. 2) Domicile [2017] EWHC 449 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

The question before the court was, in the context of divorce proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent, whether either party to the marriage were domiciled in England and Wales. The respondent’s position was that neither were so domiciled, such that the divorce petition of the petitioner should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

At the time of the proceedings the respondent was 72 years old. He was born in Mumbai, India. He moved to London with his family when he was 13 or 14. He studied in England, married and purchased a property in London, and pursued a ...

International: A jurisdictional jigsaw

Alice Couriel considers the long-running proceedings in three jurisdictions in Lachaux v Lachaux and the issues addressed by the court ‘This case highlights that any jurisdictional issues should form part of any initial fact-finding exercise by practitioners.’The judgment in Lachaux v Lachaux [2017] addressed a number of interesting issues, including the status and recognition of …
This post is only available to members.