Ray v Sekhri
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RIMER
- LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE
- LORD JUSTICE VOS
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal involves a divorce petition filed by a wife in England and Wales, contested by her husband on jurisdictional grounds. The husband argued that neither party was domiciled in England and Wales at the relevant time. The Court of Appeal reviewed the case, assessing domicile principles from established case law such as 'Barlow Clowes v. Henwood' and concluded the parties were domiciled in England and Wales. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of Holman J.
Judgment
Lord Justice McFarlane :
This appeal relates to a divorce petition issued by a wife in England and Wales on 20 th August 2012. Her husband asserts that the court in England and Wales does not have jurisdiction to entertain this divorce petition because, he says, neither party to the marriage was habitually resident or domiciled in the jurisdiction on the date that it was issued. At first instance Holman J disagreed with the husband and held that each of the parties was domiciled in England and Wales at the relevant time. In this appeal the husband seeks to establish that Holman J was in error; he asserts that a proper application of the relevant law to the facts of this case could only produce a conclusion that neither party was domiciled in England and Wales in August 2012. Further, depending on the outcome of his appeal in relation to domicile, the husband also seeks to appeal orders for costs in relation to maintenance pending suit proceedings.
Neither party submits to this court that Holman J incorrectly stated the legal context applying to decisions relating to domicile and neither party seeks to persuade us that the existing case law requires further clarification. The issue before us relates to the manner in which the judge applied the law to the factual evidence that was available to him.
The judgment of Holman J, which was handed down on 23 rd July 2013, is available on Bailii under the neutral citation [2013] EWHC 2290 (Fam) . Within that judgment Holman J gives a detailed summary of the background and of the features of the evidence that he regarded as relevant. As that judgment is publicly available, I intend only to offer a summary of the background, rather than reproduce the level of detail contained in the first instance judgment.
The couple met in December 2008 having been introduced to each other through an on-line dating agency. They were each, then, in their mid thirties and were successful young professionals. He was, and still is, a successful international lawyer with a partnership in a world class American law firm. The wife was a paediatric anaesthetist working at Great Ormond Street hospital in London and well on the way to achieving her goal of becoming a consultant at a leading London hospital. Within a short time of their first meeting each was plainly contemplating that this might be an enduring relationship. There was, however, a potential problem. The problem was that they had come together at the very moment