‘Ruling fuels debate on divorce tourism’
Dispute over which country hearing should be in
LEGAL: A Supreme Court ruling which will allow an aristocrat’s wife to divorce in Scotland but fight for money in England could fuel further debate over “divorce tourism”, lawyers have warned.
The couple married in England but lived mainly in Scotland before separating after 18 years, and have been in dispute over where hearings should be held.
A SUPREME Court ruling which will allow an aristocrat’s wife to divorce in Scotland but fight for money in England could fuel further debate over “divorce tourism”, lawyers have warned.
Charles and Emma Villiers, who married in England but lived mainly in Scotland before separating after 18 years, have been in dispute over where hearings should be held.
Mr Villiers had fought for a Scottish hearing, with his estranged wife, now living in England, pushing for any debate over financial settlements to be heard south of the border.
Five Supreme Court justices have now ruled against Mr Villier, dismissing an appeal and concluding the two proceedings are not “related actions”.
The implications could be far reaching, say lawyers, and may result in an increase in the number of wives pursuing maintenance through the English courts.
“This judgment arguably reinforces the view of London being the divorce capital of the world,” said Andrew Newbury, of Hall Brown Family Law.
“Courts here tend to take a more generous approach to spousal maintenance than they do in other European countries.
“The attitude of the English courts to maintenance provision is, in particular, poles apart from that of their counterparts in Scotland.”
Mr and Mrs Villiers are listed on genealogical surveys of the peerage in Britain, with lawyers representing Mr Villiers say he is a relative of the Duchess of Cornwall.
The Villiers, who lived near Dumbarton and are divorcing in Scotland, had disagreed about whether arguments over money should be heard in an English or Scottish court.
Mr Villiers argued any fight over money should be staged in Scotland where divorce proceedings are.
His estranged wife, who now lives in England, said it was not convenient, and she believes she may walk away from the marriage with more than she otherwise might.
A judge based in the Family Division of the High Court in London began considering the dispute in 2015, stating any fight over the division of money should take place in England.
In 2018, three Court of Appeal judges in London upheld that decision and dismissed an appeal by Mr Villiers, saying divorce proceedings in Scotland and a money fight in England were not “related actions”.
Supreme Court justices ruled against Mr Villiers yesterday after analysing the dispute.
“What that means is that we might well see more wives who are able to demonstrate a reason why their cases should be heard in English courts coming here to claim maintenance,” said Mr Newbury.