The Family Court has dismissed a woman's application to stay divorce and financial remedy proceedings, finding that she had not demonstrated that it would be more appropriate to litigate the issues in Florida.
She had met another woman in Switzerland in 2019 and begun a relationship with her. At the time, she had been living in the USA and the other woman had been renting a flat in London. They had married in Colorado the following year.
They separated in September 2025 and shortly afterwards the woman's wife began divorce proceedings in England. The woman contended that Florida was the more appropriate forum for the proceedings. She applied to stay the English proceedings pending determination of that issue.
Although she stopped complying with court orders and did not attend the hearing, she had previously filed a witness statement in which she had said that Florida was the more appropriate jurisdiction because she was a US citizen, the couple had married in the USA and they had entered into a pre-nuptial agreement (PNA) in Florida which was subject to Florida law. All of her assets were in the USA and evidence about them could be most conveniently obtained there.
Her wife claimed that the couple had maintained a home in London since 2020, and Florida had never been their main home or residence. She contended that if the Florida courts rejected the PNA they would make an award similar to that which would be made in England, and if they upheld it she would seek an order in England under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. She would thus end up with broadly the same result regardless of where the proceedings were heard.
The wife's attorneys in Florida had stated that the woman did not meet the residency requirement there to establish jurisdiction for divorce, and no basis had been put forward for the Florida courts having jurisdiction over her wife. The wife had also been advised that clauses such as the jurisdiction clause in the PNA were limited to commercial matters involving residents or citizens of the USA. The Florida courts therefore did not have jurisdiction to deal with the divorce.
The Court found that the woman had not shown that Florida was clearly the more appropriate jurisdiction. She had failed to demonstrate that she was a Florida resident, that the Florida courts would reject her wife's motion that they lacked jurisdiction, or that the jurisdiction clause in the PNA was valid. The couple's marriage had more ties to the jurisdiction of England and Wales than Florida, and the proceedings in England were well advanced. She had engaged in substantial litigation misconduct and it would be unfair for her wife to re-litigate in Florida many of the issues that the Court had already considered. Whilst the Court accepted that many of her assets were in the USA, that did not mean that Florida was the more appropriate jurisdiction.
