Family

Family

Matrimonial proceedings - requirement of habitual residence - possible to be habitually resident in two countries simultaneouslyIkimi v Ikimi: CA (Thorpe and Clarke LJJ and Holland J):13 June 2001The parties, who were both Nigerian, maintained homes of matching status in both England and Nigeria.

The wife filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage pleading that she had been habitually resident in London for the preceding 13 months.The husband, who had already started divorce proceedings in Nigeria, challenged the jurisdictional basis of the wife's petition, contending that since the periods spent by her in England over the preceding year amounted to only 161 days, she had not been habitually resident in the jurisdiction over the relevant period as required by section 5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

On a preliminary issue, Mr Justice Coleridge rejected the husband's challenge.

The husband appealed.Timothy Scott QC (instructed by Le Brasseur J Tickle) for the husband.

Camden Pratt QC and Julie O'Malley (instructed by Lee & Pembertons) for the wife.Held, dismissing the appeal, that a person could be habitually resident within the jurisdiction for the whole of the one-year period required by section 5(2) of the 1973 Act despite also being habitually resident in another country; that the appropriate test was whether the residence in question had been adopted voluntarily and for a settled purpose throughout the relevant period, apart from temporary or occasional absences; and that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there was a sufficient basis for jurisdiction.

(WLR)