The High Court has ruled that Ireland has jurisdiction over divorce proceedings brought by a wife who was habitually resident in the State when she issued them in September 2013. The court rejected her husband’s challenge, despite finding that he was habitually resident in France. It also directed that the proceedings be remitted to the Circuit Court, saying the evidence suggested the assets were within that court’s jurisdiction.
The ruling concerns a motion challenging jurisdiction, not the divorce itself or the division of assets. The parties, identified in the judgment as M.M. and J.L., married in County Wicklow in 1997. Their marriage broke down in 2008. It had not been registered, and a Circuit Court order in 2014 declared it valid from the date of marriage. A marriage certificate issued in 2015.
The husband argued that both parties had been habitually resident and domiciled in France, and that the Irish court should decline jurisdiction under the EU regulation governing divorce proceedings. He said their French apartment was their matrimonial home. The wife said it was a holiday property and that she had been habitually resident in Ireland since returning in 2010 or 2011.
The husband had brought separate proceedings in France in 2009 seeking financial relief after he could not establish the marriage without a certificate. French courts declined jurisdiction in favour of Ireland, but the Irish judge said those decisions had not determined where either party was habitually resident during the relevant period for the EU regulation.
Justice Donald Binchy found that the couple had established their matrimonial home in the French apartment after marrying. He also found that the husband had resided in France and that France was his centre of interest in the year before the Irish proceedings began.
The judge found that the wife had moved to the United States after the marriage broke down and was initially habitually resident there. But he accepted evidence that she returned to Ireland and spent much of the year before the proceedings working on projects in the State. Her work was her principal interest and responsibility during that period, the judge said. He concluded that she was habitually resident in Ireland when she issued the case and had likely resided principally here for at least a year beforehand.
Under the regulation, that was enough for Ireland to have jurisdiction, even though the husband could also have brought proceedings in France. The court therefore refused his jurisdiction challenge. It directed that the case be remitted to the Circuit Court based on the available evidence about the value of the assets. The judgment did not decide the divorce or make orders dividing those assets.