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.
You must be logged in and have an active subscription to view full content.
Charles Hale QC (4 Paper Buildings, 1st Floor, 4 Paper Buildings, Temple, London, EC4Y 7EX, tel 020 7427 5200, email firstname.lastname@example.org) and Jonathan Rustin (4 Paper Buildings, 1st Floor, 4 Paper Buildings, Temple, London, EC4Y 7EX, tel 020 7427 5200, email email@example.com) instructed by Anthony Gold & Co (The Counting House, 53 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QN, tel 020 7940 4060, email firstname.lastname@example.org) for U, the Petitioner Wife.
Timothy Scott QC (29 Bedford Row Chambers, London, WC1R 4HE, tel 020 7404 1044 email email@example.com) and William Tyzack (Queen Elizabeth Building, 3rd Floor, Queen Elizabeth Building, Temple, London, EC4Y 9BS, tel 020 7797 7837, email firstname.lastname@example.org) instructed by Stewarts Law LLP (5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF tel 020 7822 8000 email email@example.com) for J, the Respondent Husband
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view.