My ex lives in another country – can I still get divorced in England and Wales?
Certain criteria need to be met to divorce in England and Wales. These criteria are generally based on where each party lives or is domiciled and how long they have lived in England and Wales. If you ex lives abroad, the more common grounds used are:
- That you were both last “habitually resident” in England and Wales and one continues to reside here
- That you are “habitually resident” in England and Wales and have resided here for at least one year immediately before applying for a divorce
- That you are “domiciled” and “habitually resident” in England and Wales and have resided there for at least six months immediately before applying for a divorce
- That you are “domiciled” in England and Wales
The test for whether you are “habitually resident” or “domiciled” for the requisite period of time can be quite fact specific so it is always best to seek legal advice.
If you meet the eligibility and start proceedings here, your ex may start competing proceedings abroad. In those circumstances, the court will consider where is most “convenient” and if the courts where you ex lives are found to be more convenient, it will stop the proceedings here. Convenience is fact specific but by way of example, if all of your assets are located in the country your ex resides in, it may be more convenient to base the proceedings there for ease of enforcing financial orders.
Related FAQs
The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:
- The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
- How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
- Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.
The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.
On 18 March 2020, the Government announced that it would pass emergency legislation which would prevent landlords, both social and private, from bringing possession proceedings against tenants who are unable to pay their rent. The Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick, stated that “no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home, nor will any landlord face unmanageable debts.”
The announcement came after several organisations, including housing charity Shelter, expressed concerns that more than 50,000 households could face possession proceedings due to the economic uncertainty following the Covid-19 outbreak.
You may be able to make a claim against your ex-spouse’s estate on the basis that their Will does not make ‘reasonable financial provision’ for you. You will not be able to bring a claim if you have remarried, or if a condition of your divorce explicitly states that you will not make a claim against their estate.
These types of claims are very fact-specific so it is not possible to give a straightforward yes or no answer as to whether any such claim is available to you. The court will consider all factors which we can explore with you in more detail.
Hopefully, further guidance will provide additional clarification on this, but it is difficult to see how a charity whose operations have been significantly curtailed because of the Covid-19 restrictions, cannot furlough employees and access the scheme, in particular where they have several different income streams. For example if a charity’s retail or fundraising operations have been significantly curtailed due to the restrictions, then it would appear unfair for it not to able to rely on the furlough scheme to assist in the funding of the employment costs associated with this part of the charity.
However, it might be prudent, where there are services that are publicly funded and employees working within those services cannot undertake their normal work, to consider if they can do different roles to work on Covid-19 activities. If there is no such work available then the guidance does appear to allow the furloughing of employees and such organisations to access the scheme.
In our experience, the funding streams and work undertaken by the organisations that could fall into the third category identified above can be exceptionally diverse and we would strongly recommend that you take advice before making such decisions about furloughing employees.
You should speak to your advisors. We do not know presently how existing petitions will be dealt with by the Court. We do know that if any winding up order is made (based on a petition presented after 27 April), it could be found to be void and a creditor may face challenges. Even for petitions presented before 27th April, there is a risk that the Court will not be keen to make a winding up order so it is important that you look at the facts of your debt and weigh up all of the factors before deciding how to proceed.