Introduction

Villiers v. Villiers ([2020] UKSC 30) is a landmark judgment delivered by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of English courts in matrimonial matters, particularly concerning maintenance claims. The case revolves around a couple who were married in England but primarily resided in Scotland for the majority of their marriage. Upon separation, the wife moved back to England and sought maintenance orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The central legal issues pertained to whether English courts retained jurisdiction to make maintenance orders in predominantly intra-UK contexts, especially in light of the Maintenance Regulation and the exclusion of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that English courts do have jurisdiction to make maintenance orders under section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, even in cases with no international dimension. The Court held that the Maintenance Regulation and Schedule 6 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 provide a comprehensive framework that excludes the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine. Consequently, maintenance proceedings must adhere to the jurisdictional rules set forth in these regulations, emphasizing the maintenance creditor's right to choose the most favorable forum within the UK.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases and EU regulations to underpin its reasoning:

• Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801: Established that the Brussels Convention precludes courts from exercising discretionary jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens.
• Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority [1999] 1 AC 32: Highlighted the need for related actions to be closely connected to avoid irreconcilable judgments.
• R v P (Case C-468/18) [2020] 4 WLR 8: Confirmed that the Maintenance Regulation grants maintenance creditors the right to choose their forum.
• Moore v Moore [2007] 2 FLR 339: Addressed the relationship between divorce proceedings and separate maintenance claims, finding that they are not inherently related actions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court examined the interplay between the Maintenance Regulation and Schedule 6 of the 2011 Regulations. It emphasized that these regulations were designed to provide a clear and exhaustive framework for jurisdictional matters related to maintenance within the UK, irrespective of different legal parts (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland). By integrating the Maintenance Regulation into domestic law via Schedule 6, the common law principle of forum non conveniens was effectively excluded, ensuring that maintenance creditors retain the prerogative to choose their preferred forum based on convenience or favorable legal outcomes.

The Court also addressed the concerns raised about potential ultra vires actions by the Secretary of State in implementing Schedule 6. It concluded that Schedule 6 was within the powers granted by the European Communities Act 1972, as it aimed to streamline jurisdictional rules in alignment with EU objectives.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts matrimonial law by reinforcing the position of maintenance creditors within the UK. English courts must now adhere strictly to the Maintenance Regulation and Schedule 6, leaving no room for discretionary jurisdiction based on traditional common law doctrines. Future cases will likely follow this precedent, emphasizing the structured jurisdictional framework and limiting judicial discretion in favor of legislative clarity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Maintenance Regulation

The Maintenance Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009) is an EU framework that governs jurisdiction and enforcement related to maintenance obligations across member states. It grants maintenance creditors the right to initiate claims in their habitual residence or that of the debtor, thereby protecting the weaker party in a marriage.

Schedule 6 to the 2011 Regulations

Schedule 6 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 adapts the Maintenance Regulation for intra-UK cases, ensuring consistency in jurisdictional rules within different parts of the UK. It outlines specific provisions that align domestic jurisdictional practices with overarching EU regulations.

Forum Non Conveniens

The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss cases if another forum is deemed more appropriate for hearing the dispute. The Supreme Court in Villiers v. Villiers determined that this doctrine is inapplicable to maintenance proceedings governed by the Maintenance Regulation and Schedule 6.

Conclusion

The Villiers v. Villiers judgment marks a pivotal moment in UK matrimonial law, affirming that maintenance creditors can effectively choose the most advantageous forum within the UK without judicial interference based on common law principles like forum non conveniens. By upholding the jurisdictional framework established by the Maintenance Regulation and Schedule 6, the Supreme Court has fortified the rights of maintenance creditors, ensuring legal certainty and consistency in matrimonial financial proceedings across the UK.