Family Law Hub

Wermuth v Wermuth [2003] EWCA Civ 50

Judgment, published: 04/02/2003

Items referring to this

  • Judgment, 06/03/2007, free
  • An unusual case where the English court was first seised of the parties' divorce proceedings. The husband then arranged for the divorce proceedings by mutual consent to be issued in the Spanish court. The English proceedings were then stayed (and subsequently dismissed) on the primary ground that the parties had entered into an agreement (the "Agreement") whereby the wife undertook that she had abandoned the English divorce proceedings, so that she was estopped from arguing that those proceedings remained extant. The wife argued that the effect of the Council Regulation No 2201/2003 was to prevent the court implementing any agreement by the parties as to the appropriate jurisdiction for divorce proceedings. It was submitted that the effect of articles 16 and 19 of the Council Regulation was to give jurisdiction to the court first seised of the matter, and to require the second court to decline jurisdiction in favour of the first court. In this case, the English court was seised first, and accordingly no subsequent agreement of any kind could displace its jurisdiction. Lord Justice Vos ruled that the judge was wrong to order a stay of the proceedings on the basis of the Agreement. He ought to have held that the provisions of article 19 of the Council Regulation were applicable and could not be overridden by the Agreement. In these circumstances, the suggestion that the proceedings should be taken to have lapsed could not succeed. Judgment, 29/01/2014, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2006, free
  • Wife's appeal against a stay of proceedings brought by her in England on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum to hear the proceedings (forum non conveniens). Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 20/10/2013, free
  • Judgment, 05/07/2005, free
  • Case note, 21/12/2010, members only
  • Judgment concerning jurisdiction for divorce proceedings under BIIR where the husband had issued in Italy and the wife had filed petitions in England. The judge dismissed the wife's English petitions. Judgment, 27/11/2014, free

Published: 04/02/2003

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item