No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Divorce in English Private International Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
The case of Le Mesurier v Le Mesurier at the end of the last century firmly established the principle that, in England, the jurisdiction of the court in divorce matters is based solely on the domicile of the parties at the date of institution of the proceedings (1, 7). It was strongly felt that there should be unity of domicile of husband and wife and thus, in effect, the domicile of the parties was that of the husband, the wife retaining, so long as the marriage subsisted, the domicile of her husband (3).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1972
References
1. The number between brackets refer to the decisions published hereafter, under CASE LAW.
2. 1895 A.C. 517.
3. 1952 P. 233.
4. Stransky v Stransky 1954 P. 428.
5. Sinclair v. Sinclair 1967Google Scholar, 3 WLR 1540.
6. British Isles means here the United Kingdom (i.e. Great Britain and Northern Ireland), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
7. Great Britain means here England, Scotland and Wales.
8. Armitage v. Att. Gen. [1906] P. 135. The “third country” might be England, (see 10, concerning a talaq delivered in England), while the parties' domicile was in Pakistan.
9. E.g. Indian Divorces (Validity) Act 1921, Kenya Divorces (Validity) Act 1922, Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act 1926, Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act 1940, Colonial and other Territories (Divorce Jurisdiction) Act 1950, Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act 1944.
10. 1953, p. 246.
11. 1969 1 A.C. 33, 1967 2 All E.R. 689, H.L.