A recent case shows how courts decide which country should handle a divorce when proceedings start in two places. This is an issue that divorcing couples need to be more alive to as families and relationships become ever more international in nature. 

In this case an Egyptian couple, married in 1996, had lived in England for many years and both became British citizens. After separating in 2023, the wife applied for divorce in England, while the husband tried to have the case heard in Egypt.

The court looked at the law under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, which says proceedings can be paused if another country is the more appropriate forum. The judge considered factors like habitual residence, domicile, and the balance of fairness. The difference between habitual residence and domicile is often an important one when considering issues of jurisdiction, and it is something for which specialist advice is needed. 

Here, England was clearly where the couple had the strongest ties: they lived here for over a decade, raised their children here, owned a home, and most of their assets were in this country. The wife remains domiciled and habitually resident in England, which was a key factor.

The judge also noted delays and uncertainty in Egypt and that divorce under Coptic Evangelical law would have been much harder for the wife. England was therefore the natural forum for the case. 

As with this case, the court must also consider the likely outcome in the competing jurisdictions and the likelihood of achieving a fair outcome. This can be of particular relevance where religious law may apply, or where the legal system in the competing country may defeat fairness. 

If this article has raised any questions for you, please reach out to a member of our family team who will be happy to assist you.