Arbuthnot J. H’s application for a stay of the financial remedy proceedings in favour of proceedings in Monaco.

Background

W and H were both born in Russia and during their relationship spent time in London, Monaco and the US. The parties married in 2015 and moved to Malibu in 2019 although H travelled back and forth from Monaco. W’s green card was rejected. W rented a five-bedroom property in London with H’s knowledge and funding in August 2021. She applied for settled status in the UK. However, H stayed there for no more than eight weeks.

H started proceedings in Monaco on 16 February 22. There was a brief reconciliation before W started proceedings in London on 30 September 2022. H agreed in writing that he would proceed on a no-fault basis as long as the wife agreed to proceed in Monaco. A fault-based divorce under article 197 of the Monegasque civil code gave a discretion to award the spouse at fault a “compensatory allowance” and any financial settlement would be lower if it was fault-based.

The Monegasque judgment

H contended his domicile was Monaco and W argued he had changed it to the US and then London. The court struggled to determine each party’s intentions. It concluded that while they planned to move to London, marriage difficulties got the better of this and accordingly their last marital home was in Monaco and it was the last common domicile of the spouses. Further, the husband’s two visits to London did not establish habitual residence there. W did not appeal this decision.

Decision

Arbuthnot J agreed with W that England had jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings. However, there remained the question of whether the court should exercise its discretion to order a stay under s 9(1) of Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 given the existence of proceedings in Monaco. Arbuthnot J adopted the summary of the relevant law set out by HHJ Hess in SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115 at [20] – summary here: SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115.

W’s case that they were both last habitually resident in England and Wales was rejected. The marital home was in Monaco and the parties shared an intention to settle in the US if W’s green card was accepted. W moving to London was in the context of the marriage breaking down and it was never a home for the family unit, despite W renting a flat there since 2010. There was an element of forum shopping in this case as W had taken part in the Monegasque proceedings and then sought to issue proceedings in England.

Monaco was the natural forum for the proceedings because there was never a family home in England and the only asset H had in England was loss-making.

W contended that the stay should be refused as the Monegasque litigation would cause her substantial injustice. There was no substantial injustice as H’s lawyers had offered to continue the Monegasque divorce under the no fault procedure, the proceedings in Monaco would be conducted in a language the wife is fluent in, both were represented by specialist lawyers, and the proceedings would be supported by financial disclosure which could be enforced.