Vivien Croly from our Family and Divroce team writes a case summary for the Financial Remedies Journal on Re A and Z (No 4) (Forum Non Conveniens) [2026] EWFC 203.

 

Summary

The applicant’s opposed and unsuccessful application to stay the determination of the divorce and financial remedy proceedings on the grounds it would be more convenient for the issues to be litigated in the state of Florida, USA.

 

Background

This is the fourth judgment in these proceedings.

The applicant (‘A’) was born in the USA in 1972 and is 54 years old. The respondent (‘R’) was born in Hungary in 1992 and is 34 years old. When the parties met in Davos in January 2019, A was living in the USA (state unclear) and R was living in a rented flat in London.

By 14 July 2019, the parties were engaged to be married. On 20 July 2019, they married in Hawaii – there was no pre-nuptial agreement (PNA) – but R’s divorce from her previous husband had not been finalised. A further wedding was organised in Florida in April 2020 but was cancelled due to Covid. On 29 July 2020, the day before their third wedding attempt, A asked R to sign a PNA, which she did. The parties were married on 30 July 2020. On 3 October 2025, R applied for a divorce in England, asserting England and Wales had jurisdiction as R had been a habitual resident for at least one year before the application for divorce was issued.

An order for substituted service of the English divorce proceedings on A was made on 14 October 2025. R’s application for financial remedy was issued on 5 November 2025. On 7 November 2025, A filed her Answer to the divorce, headed ‘Without Prejudice or Submission to the Jurisdiction’ and made her application for a stay. A asserted there had been invalid service, and further, that even if England had jurisdiction, Florida would be more appropriate. A did not dispute R was habitually resident in England and Wales for one year prior to issuing for divorce. A’s issue regarding jurisdiction was invalid service.

A successfully applied for a hearing to determine the forum non conveniens dispute, and for a single joint expert in the law of Florida to consider, among other things, the validity of service of the divorce application in Florida. Until that point, A had been represented by leading counsel. However, thereafter, A chose not to comply with the orders made including an order for maintenance pending suit and legal services provision. Enforcement applications were made by R, as well as a successful application for permission to serve A by alternative means (email). Please see previous case summary Bartok v Brunner [2026] EWFC 146.

By the time of this hearing, A had failed to instruct the single joint expert in the law of Florida, or provide any evidence further to the directions made in March 2026 and then re-made in May 2026. A did not attend this hearing, and she chose not to be represented, which was surprising given it was a hearing she had requested, to determine her own application for a stay and to demonstrate Florida as being the more convenient jurisdiction.

 

Read the full article here.