Some married couples have ties to one or more countries.  Different countries have different divorce, financial relief and children laws.  As a result, what may apply in one country can be quite different in another.
What happens if a divorce is granted overseas? Does this mean that the English Courts are prevented from dealing with matters once an order has been made abroad?
In certain situations Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“the Act”) allows the English courts to make financial orders following a foreign divorce.
The Act provides that where a marriage has been dissolved or annulled in an overseas country, and that divorce, annulment or legal separation is valid in England & Wales, either party to the marriage may apply to the English Courts for financial relief.
The first step is to establish whether the English Courts have the jurisdiction (the ability) to hear the application.  The Act states that the court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order for financial relief if any of the following requirements are satisfied:
(a) either of the parties to the marriage was domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application for permission, or was so domiciled on the date on which the divorce, annulment or legal separation obtained in the overseas country took effect; or
(b) either of the parties to the marriage was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with the date of the application for permission or was so resident throughout the period of one year ending with the date on which the divorce, annulment or legal separation obtained in the overseas country took; or
(c) either or both of the parties to the marriage had at the date of the application for permission a beneficial interest in possession in a dwelling-house (i.e. house) situated in England or Wales which was at some time during the marriage a matrimonial home of the parties to the marriage.
The second step is to apply for leave, or the courts permission to make the application.  In deciding whether to grant permission, the court should consider the following matters:
(a) the connection which the parties to the marriage have with England and Wales;

(b) the connection which those parties have with the country in which the marriage was dissolved or annulled or in which they were legally separated;

(c) the connection which those parties have with any other country outside England and Wales;

(d) any financial benefit which the applicant or a child of the family has received, or is likely to receive, in consequence of the divorce, annulment or legal separation, by virtue of any agreement or the operation of the law of a country outside England and Wales;

(e) in a case where an order has been made by a court in a country outside England and Wales requiring the other party to the marriage to make any payment or transfer any property for the benefit of the applicant or a child of the family, the financial relief given by the order and the extent to which the order has been complied with or is likely to be complied with;

(f) any right which the applicant has, or has had, to apply for financial relief from the other party to the marriage under the law of any country outside England and Wales and if the applicant has omitted to exercise that right the reason for that omission;

(g) the availability in England and Wales of any property in respect of which an order under this Part of this Act in favour of the applicant could be made;

(h) the extent to which any order made under this Part of this Act is likely to be enforceable;

(i) the length of time which has elapsed since the date of the divorce, annulment or legal separation.
If leave is granted, the court will consider the merits of the case, and whether it needs to make any orders adjusting the couples finances.
This legislation has recently been considered at some length by the Supreme Court (the highest appeal Court in England & Wales) in the case of Agbaje -v- Akinnoye-Agbaje. 
The facts of this particular case concerned a couple (Mr and Mrs Agbaje) who were both born in Nigeria.  They met in England in the early 1960’s.  They married in London in May 1967, and had five children during the marriage, all of whom were born in England.
Although Mr and Mrs Agbaje spent most of their married life in Nigeria, they did acquire UK citizenship in 1972, and Mr Agbaje purchased a house in London in 1975.
When Mr and Mrs Agbaje separated in 1999 Mrs Agbaje came to live in one of their properties in London.  In 2003, after they had been separated for approximately 4 years, Mr Agbaje issued divorce proceedings in the Nigerian courts.  As part of these proceedings the Nigerian court made an order in respect of the matrimonial finances.  The Nigerian court gave Mrs Agbaje a life interest in a property in Lagos, with a capital value of about £86,000 and a lump sum equivalent to £21,000. 
The total assets were approximately £700,000, of which £530,000 was represented by two properties in London.  This was a long marriage and given Mrs Agbaje’s role within the marriage, the Nigerian court order was unfair compared with any award that an English court might have made.  The order made by the Nigerian court gave Mrs Agbaje no accommodation in England (where she was living) and she would therefore face being homeless. 
In September 2005, as a result of the order of the Nigerian court, Mrs Agbaje made an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 to the English courts for financial relief. 
The matter was dealt with by the High Court (all applications pursuant to this Act have to be issued in the High Court).  The High Court ordered that Mrs Agbaje should receive 65% of the proceeds of sale of the London property to enable her to house and maintain herself in London.  This worked out to be approximately 39% of the overall assets, providing reasonably for her needs.  

Mr Agbaje then appealed to the Court of Appeal which refused Mrs Agbaje any relief whatsoever, effectively putting back in place the original order of the Nigerian court.  In doing this, the Court of Appeal placed reliance on the fact that the High Court had given insufficient weight to the strong connections of the family with Nigeria.
The case progressed to the Supreme Court who delivered their judgment in March 2010, restoring the order of the High Court.
In making its order the court was clear the purpose of the Act was not to allow someone with ‘some’ English connections to take advantage of what may well be the more generous approach in England to financial provision.  The Act should only be applied towards the alleviation of the adverse consequences of inadequate financial provision being made by a foreign court, where the parties had substantial connections with England.
The simple fact that there might be a disparity between an award of a foreign court and what would be awarded in an English Court is insufficient to allow an application using Part III.
In deciding what would be appropriate provision the primary consideration (as with any matrimonial proceedings in England & Wales) must be the welfare of any children of the marriage.  Second, it will never be appropriate to make an order which gives the person making the claim more than he or she would have been awarded had all proceedings taken place within England & Wales, and thirdly, where possible the order should have the result that provision is made for the reasonable needs of each spouse.
Subject to these principles, the court has a broad discretion.
For more information on how we can help at bbl family law, call to speak to one of our lawyers.