Recognition of foreign divorce

Golubovich v Golubovich [2010] EWCA Civ 810, TLR 27 August

The parties were both Russian and after their marriage in 2006 lived in London until the marriage broke down in 2009. The wife filed the first petition in London. The husband filed the second petition in Moscow. In London the wife sought acceleration and the husband delay. In Moscow the reverse occurred. Each understood that whichever jurisdiction dissolved the marriage would then decide ancillary relief claims in accordance with its law and practice. Neither party sought to establish which was the more convenient primary jurisdiction. They embarked on an unedifying race pitting one against the other, which the husband won, obtaining the first divorce in Moscow in December 2009. In October and November 2009 the wife had obtained orders intended to prevent the pronouncement in Moscow of any further divorce pending the trial of the validity of a Moscow divorce allegedly pronounced in July 2009. The injunctions were pursuant to the decision in Hemain v Hemain [1998] 2 FLR 388 which validated the power to grant an injunction restraining a party from pursuing proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction to prevent that party from gaining an unfair advantage. On these grounds Mr Justice Singer on 29–30 March 2010 refused to recognise the decree of divorce. The Moscow court considered itself as having a straightforward jurisdiction to resolve a marriage between two Russian citizens and, in the absence of any applicable treaty with the United Kingdom, was not deterred by the London orders.