AO v EO [2026] EWFC 30 (B)

Judgment date: 6 February 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/30

HHJ Edward Hess. Judgment in financial remedy proceedings, addressing habitual residence and forum conveniens where the parties had competing connections to England and Nigeria. The court refused the husband’s application for a stay, holding that England and Wales was the appropriate forum, and continued a Hemain injunction to restrain parallel proceedings in Nigeria.

Background

The wife, AO (aged 48), and husband, EO (aged 56), have substantial links to both England and Nigeria. The parties have three children together: E (daughter, aged 23), O (son, aged 20) and G (son, aged 11). EO is and always has been a Nigerian citizen, a country with which he retained business and property interests though he has indefinite leave to remain in the UK. AO is also a Nigerian citizen, though she additionally became a British citizen in 2019.

Although the early years of the parties’ relationship were spent in Nigeria, it was not disputed that the family relocated to England and thereafter established their centre of life there in 2012. In 2021, in an effort to conciliate their relationship, AO, EO and G lived in Nigeria, though they did not rent out their property in England and AO continued to spend significant periods of time in England.

The relationship broke down acrimoniously in 2023, after which AO returned to England though she retained a presence in Nigeria for G’s education. EO remained in Nigeria.

Both jurisdictions were, in principle, capable of determining the divorce and associated financial remedy proceedings. There were also several ongoing Nigerian civil proceedings relating to property transactions and alleged dissipation of assets.

Procedural history

AO initially petitioned in Nigeria on 6 May 2024. However, she discontinued her petition on 4 March 2025. AO petitioned in England and Wales on 14 January 2025.

AO issued a Form A in England and Wales seeking financial remedies on 20 January 2025. EO responded to this on 5 February 2025, asserting that there was no jurisdiction because AO was habitually resident in Nigeria, having moved to England less than a year before her application. EO issued a divorce petition in Nigeria on 7 March 2025 which was restrained by a Hemain injunction made by DDJ Wooton on 30 June 2025. The Nigerian proceedings were stayed on 4 July 2025.

Legal framework

HHJ Hess set out that he had to consider whether the English court had jurisdiction on the basis of AO’s habitual residence at the time of her divorce application and for at least one year immediately prior. If the answer to that question was yes, then the second question was whether Nigeria provided the more appropriate forum for the divorce and financial remedy proceedings.

Jurisdiction and habitual residence

Under s 5(2)(d) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, jurisdiction as to divorce proceedings requires the applicant to be habitually resident on the application date and to have resided in England and Wales for at least one year prior. Moor J in Pierburg v Pierburg [2019] EWFC 24 clarified that the preceding one-year requirement necessitates ‘residence’ as opposed to the higher bar of ‘habitual residence’.

Forum

HHJ Hess applied the conventional forum non conveniens analysis derived from the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and authorities such as Spiliada v Cansulex [1987] AC 460 and Chai v Peng [2014] EWHC 3518 (Fam). In doing so, HHJ Hess outlined the relevant considerations by quoting from his earlier judgment in SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115 (summarised by this author):

i) Broad facts and circumstances.

ii) The ‘natural forum’ (i.e. that with which the parties have the most real and substantial connection, considering factors affecting convenience and expense).

iii) A stay will only be granted where the court is satisfied there is another appropriate, available forum with competent jurisdiction.

iv) If there is no other available forum, a stay will (almost certainly) be refused.

v) Notwithstanding the availability of another appropriate forum, justice may require that proceedings should continue in England and Wales if the applicant, on a balancing exercise, succeeds in showing the same.

vi) Loss of personal or juridical advantage does not bar a stay if the alternative forum offers substantial justice.

vii) A stay should not be refused merely because a party expects a better outcome in one forum over another

Key findings

Jurisdiction

The court found that the courts of England and Wales did have jurisdiction, having considered that the family had deliberately established England as their centre of interests from 2012 onwards, notwithstanding the roughly two-year period between 2021 and 2024 in which AO was habitually resident in Nigeria. Importantly, the children were educated and primarily based in England.

Appropriate forum

The court found that Nigeria did not provide a clearly more appropriate forum. Although the parties could litigate in either country, the overall factual matrix pointed towards England as the hub of family life making it the natural forum.

i) Disclosure

A significant factor favouring England was the comparative ability of the English court to compel full and frank disclosure using established case-management tools, including questionnaires, schedules of deficiency, third-party disclosure orders, and the drawing of adverse inferences.

ii) Parallel Nigerian litigation

Although there were extant Nigerian proceedings (including disputes concerning land transactions allegedly involving forged documentation), HHJ Hess accepted that the English court could determine financial remedies alongside the Nigerian litigation with appropriate information-sharing.

iii) Enforcement concerns

Arguments that English orders might face enforcement obstacles in Nigeria were neutralised by the wife’s position that she did not seek property adjustment orders over Nigerian property.

Outcome

• England and Wales was the appropriate forum for the divorce and financial remedy proceedings.
• EO’s application for a stay was refused. The existing Hemain injunction was continued to injunct competing litigation in Nigeria until the conclusion of English proceedings.
• In dealing with the jurisdictional issues, AO had incurred c. £130,000 in legal costs and EO had incurred c.£47,000. EO was ordered to contribute £75,000 towards AO’s costs.

This judgment has not been certified as citable pursuant to Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restrictions and Rules) [2001] WLR 1001.