Financial provision after overseas divorce

Jurisdiction and legislative provisions

Under MFPA 1984, Pt III spouses who have been divorced overseas, and who have a connection with England and Wales, may access the available remedies in this jurisdiction to alleviate the adverse consequences of no, or no adequate, financial provision being made by a foreign court. Mirror provisions apply in relation to dissolution of an overseas civil partnership (or its equivalent) by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004).

MFPA 1984, Pt III/CPA 2004, Sch 7 provides for an application for financial relief where:

•
a marriage/civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, or the parties have been legally separated, by means of judicial or other proceedings in an overseas country, and
•
the divorce/dissolution, annulment or legal separation is recognised as valid in England and Wales

An applicant must fulfil criteria regarding habitual residence and/or domicile. The jurisdictional provisions of the EU Maintenance Regulation—Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 are no

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Financial Remedies Court publishes revised ES2 template (composite schedule of assets and income)

The Financial Remedies Court (FRC) national lead judge, Mr Justice Peel, and the deputy national lead judge, His Honour Judge Hess, have announced, with the authority of the President of the Family Division, a revised ES2 template and updated explanatory notes. The ES2 (composite schedule of assets and income) was originally issued in April 2022 alongside the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy hearings in the Financial Remedies Court below High Court judge level (the FRC efficiency statement). The revised version retains the familiar structure but introduces changes intended to improve clarity, usability and accessibility for all court users.

Family law in the United Arab Emirates

Family analysis: Alexandra Tribe, managing partner and Byron James, partner, at Expatriate Law consider recent changes to family law in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that have transformed the legal landscape for both Muslim and non-Muslim residents and the implications for family lawyers.

Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025 has been issued and makes amendments to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA and inserts a new Practice Direction, FPR 2010, PD 36ZI. The new Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD 36ZI supplements FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 36.2 (Transitional Arrangements and Pilot Schemes) to underpin a pilot scheme for notification to the police when a relevant non-molestation order is made or varied or extended by the court, under a new procedure to notify the police by automated electronic means or by email once a relevant non molestation order is made. The amendments made to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA remove the provisions providing for the court to notify the police of non-molestation orders, or variation or discharge of non-molestation orders, and of service of such orders from its scope in the North Yorkshire Pilot. Notifications of relevant non molestation orders where made will instead be subsumed by the national solution provided by the pilot in FPR 2010, PD 36ZI.

Court of Appeal allows Council’s appeal in connection with Judicial Review claim (Surrey County Council v R (on the application of BC)

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal (‘Court’) allowed the appeal brought by Surrey County Council (SCC) in connection with the judge’s decision dated 15 December 2023 permitting a claim for judicial review and set aside the judge’s three declarations dated 20 December 2023. One of these declarations being that SCC owed a duty to accommodate BC, a 17-year-old child, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The court determined the judge was wrong to conclude that a duty was owed under section 20 of the Act, or that BC was in fact being accommodated by SCC under section 20 and opined that the judge had erred in determining that SCC had acted with (Wednesbury) unreasonableness. This case provides a solid overview of the timeframes involved for bringing a claim for judicial review, confirmation of when a local authority is dutybound to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and clarity on the alternative methods that can be employed to children not deemed a ‘child in need’ and not requiring accommodation. Written by Paul Ridout, partner at HCR Law.