We use cookies to optimize our website and our service. Cookie Policy Functional Statistics Marketing Accept all Save preferences NO DICE WITHOUT DECREE NISI: J V J (NON-RECOGNITION OF OVERSEAS DIVORCE) [2021] EWFC 43. Background Peel J (‘the judge’) dealt with a raft of applications made by the Applicant Wife (‘W’) against the Respondent Husband (‘H’) including, inter alia, for W’s English divorce suit to be progressed and for the English court to not recognise any decisions of the Chinese courts, as well as MPS, LSPO and various freezing orders against overseas companies connected to H. W (34) is of Polish origin whilst H (45) is of Chinese origin. They cohabited in 2016, married in 2017 and separated in 2019. They had no children. W’s case was that they lived in England, whilst H insisted that they had lived in China during the marriage. W was highly educated and had co-founded a business with H. W’s case was that H had later stripped out the assets from the UK-based part of this company, as well as being personally seriously violent against her. W claimed that H had had her dismissed from the company, as a result of which W was awarded over £100,000 at the Employment Tribunal. After supporting W for some months during which she rented in London, H cut off all support in October 2019.. H’s minimal disclosure did not prevent the judge from being satisfied that he was a man of “considerable wealth running into many millions of pounds”. The evidence for this included a set of consolidated company accounts showing turnover of $86m and H’s admission in his Form E that he had supported W with £900,000 pa for her personal spending. The parties were both litigants in person and the judge noted a “palpable antipathy” between them W had issued her divorce petition in May 2019. H had evaded service of this, having moved back to China. Following deemed service in August 2020 there was considerable delay caused, it seems, by the court at Bury St Edmunds transferring the suit to the CFC, from whence it was transferred to the High Court to join the financial remedies application, where it languished in spite of W’s attempt to progress it. The judge acknowledged that, but for this unexplained delay, W would likely have obtained a decree in England. At an earlier hearing in February 2021 the judge had found that W’s applications fell away as a result of H having stolen a march on W and obtained a decree of divorce in China, which W accepted to be the case. W’s divorce suit and financial remedies application could not rest on these foundations. Thereafter W sought to apply under s.51 FLA 1986 for a refusal of recognition of the Chinese divorce, which was dealt with at the subsequent hearing. Issues The judge had to decide whether or not to recognise the Chinese decree pursuant to s.51(3) FLA 1986, which provides that a court may do so where: the divorce has proceeded without proper notice to the respondent; the respondent has not had an opportunity to take part in the proceedings; or to recognise the divorce would be contrary to public policy. The judge noted the dicta of Holman J in Olafisoye v Olafisoye [2010] EWHC 3540 (Fam), in which he set out a two-stage test: First, the court must make an assessment whether such steps were not taken as should reasonably have been taken. If this is the case, the second stage applies; The court may use its discretion to decide whether or not to refuse recognition, albeit with due respect for comity. The judge also noted the authorities’ emphasis, including in Eroglu v Eroglu [1994] 2 FLR (per Thorpe LJ) 287, on the need to exercise refusal on the grounds of public policy, “very sparingly” Held The judge held that W’s application for non-recognition should be dismissed. Accordingly, her financial remedies application was also dismissed. LATEST CASE SUMMARIES Will this “blizzard of litigation” make history?: Potanina v Potanin [2021] EWCA Civ 702 Was it worth the Thwaite?: Kicinski v Pardi [2021] EWHC 499 (Fam) The ‘folly’ of litigating ‘about where to litigate’: C (A Child) [2021] EWFC 32 AS v CS (Private FDR) [2021] EWFC 34 CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72 V v W [2020] EWFC 84 IC v RC [2020] EWHC 2997 (Fam) Re Z (Schedule 1: Legal Costs Funding Order; Interim Financial Provision) [2020] EWFC 80 Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1 AZ v FM (Rev 1) [2021] EWFC 2 CASE SUMMARY ARCHIVE May 2021 March 2021 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 February 2019 October 2018 July 2018 May 2018 February 2018 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 February 2017 January 2017 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 Legal Disclaimer Privacy Policy Quality Assurance Copyright 1 Hare Court, Temple, London EC4Y 7BE T 020 7797 7070 E clerks@1hc.com Website design by Sociably