Summary of Judgment — Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and the Respondent married in 2008. They lived in England (long residence for both, including purchase of a London property) until 2019 when the family relocated to Milan where they continued to cohabit with their two children. The marriage broke down in 2023. During the marriage the parties signed a separation of property agreement in Italy. The Respondent issued a divorce application in England on 12 February 2024, later relying on domicile in England to found jurisdiction. The Appellant commenced proceedings in Italy in February 2024 and challenged English jurisdiction and sought a stay. The English High Court (Family Division) (Judge Garrido) on 11 July 2025 declared that the Respondent was domiciled in England on the date of her English divorce application and dismissed the Appellant's application for a stay on the basis that Italy was not shown to be clearly the more appropriate forum. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard argument and dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent was domiciled in England and Wales on 12 February 2024 (domicile of origin or domicile of choice), thereby establishing English jurisdiction for divorce and associated financial remedy proceedings.
2. Whether the English proceedings should be stayed because Italy is clearly the more appropriate forum for the divorce and associated financial remedy proceedings (forum non conveniens under the DMPA 1973 / Spiliada principles).
3. Whether the first-instance judgment was deficient for inadequate reasoning, failure to resolve material factual disputes, or for misapplying the law on domicile and forum.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge applied the wrong legal test on loss of domicile by treating "permanently" as a required element and failed to address "permanently or indefinitely".
• The judge disregarded or failed to analyse significant written and oral evidence, failed to make primary findings of fact, and produced an inadequate judgment lacking sufficient reasoning.
• Italy was the clearly more appropriate forum given the family's residence in Italy since 2019, the exclusive Italian jurisdiction for certain welfare/property matters, the existence and effect of the Italian separation of property agreement, and the risk of parallel proceedings and duplication.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent retained an English domicile of choice established well before 2019 and did not lose it on the move to Italy because her move was reluctant and she retained an intention to return; the judge's credibility findings supported this.
• The judge applied the correct legal tests (domicile principles from Barlow Clowes and forum principles from SA v FA) and gave sufficient reasons; the trial judge's evaluative findings on subjective intention are entitled to deference.
• Proceeding in England avoids the limitation of Italian courts (which could not challenge the separation agreement or make property adjustment/lump sum orders) and Part III MFPA 1984 consequences make England an appropriate forum.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Judge Moylan, with Judges Arnold and Miles agreeing) framed the questions: (i) Has the Respondent established domicile in England when she applied for divorce? (ii) If so, has the Appellant shown Italy is clearly the more appropriate forum? (iii) If so, has the Respondent shown justice requires refusal of a stay?

The Court applied civil standard of proof and treated domicile as a subjective enquiry (intention + residence), following Barlow Clowes and Dicey. The trial judge's credibility findings (Respondent preferred; Appellant unreliable) were central. The judge had adopted a proportionate approach to evidence, focusing on determinative factors. The Court emphasised appellate restraint: evaluative determinations of fact and intention are for the trial judge and overturning requires identifiable flaws (gap in logic, failure to take material factor into account, or being not reasonably open).

On domicile the Court accepted the trial judge's findings that the Respondent had acquired an English domicile of choice well before 2019 and had not lost it by February 2024 because (inter alia) the move to Italy was reluctant, she was "primarily anchored" in England for decades, she repeatedly opposed sale of the London home, had persistent ties (career, friends, children's birth/education), and retained an intention to return. The Court held the judge applied the correct legal test (permanent/indefinite intention) and that the use of the word "permanently" in one paragraph did not indicate legal error when read in context.

On forum, the Court applied the Spiliada/De Dampierre framework and the summary in SA v FA. The judge identified connecting factors favouring England (practical ability to proceed in England; delay and procedural hurdles in Italy; language and participation difficulties in Italy for the Respondent; location and nature of assets; lack of equivalent Italian powers to make property adjustment orders; the availability of an LSPO in England; and the prospect of a future Part III MFPA 1984 claim). The Court found these factors, especially the differences in available financial remedies and the ability to avoid duplication via Part III, sufficiently supported the trial judge's conclusion that Italy was not clearly the more appropriate forum. Although Judges Arnold and Miles considered some factors (historic connections) arguably irrelevant, they agreed those inclusions did not undermine the ultimate conclusion.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding (direct effects):

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal on all grounds.
• The trial judge's declaration that the Respondent was domiciled in England and Wales on 12 February 2024 is upheld.
• The trial judge's refusal to stay the English proceedings (the Appellant failed to show Italy was clearly the more appropriate forum) is upheld.

Implications:

• English courts retain jurisdiction to proceed with the divorce and associated financial remedy proceedings. The Appellant's alternative forum application failed.
• The decision rests on the first-instance credibility findings and the evaluative application of established domicile and forum principles; the Court emphasised deference to trial judgments absent identifiable legal or logical flaw.
• No novel legal principle or binding change to precedent was established; the decision applies established tests (Barlow Clowes, Spiliada/De Dampierre, SA v FA) to the facts and confirms appellate restraint.

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Panel: Judge Moylan, Judge Arnold, Judge Miles. Counsel: Attorney Marshall (for Appellant, instructed by Company A) and Attorney Bojarski and Attorney Jones (for Respondent, instructed by Company B). Seat: The City. Date of judgment: 29 April 2026.