A v L

An overseas divorce obtained through judicial proceedings may qualify for recognition under Part II of the Family Law Act 1986 even where the proceedings confirm a talaq under foreign law. The foreign court’s jurisdictional findings must be treated as conclusive, or as sufficient unless disproved, under section 48. Recognition may nevertheless be refused under section 51 where the other spouse was denied reasonable notice or a reasonable opportunity to participate. The court may refuse recognition without deciding disputed allegations that are unnecessary to the section 51 decision.

The wife sought dissolution of her long marriage on the ground of the husband’s unreasonable behaviour. The husband had pursued divorce proceedings in Egypt without informing her, despite an English injunction restraining him from progressing those proceedings. He later relied on the Egyptian judgment, which confirmed an alleged telephone talaq and found that both parties had residence in Egypt.

The court considered whether the Egyptian judgment was entitled to recognition under sections 45 to 48 of the Family Law Act 1986, whether recognition should be refused under section 51, and whether the wife had established unreasonable behaviour.

1. Recognition framework. The Egyptian judgment was in form an overseas divorce obtained by means of proceedings. The fact that the Egyptian court confirmed a talaq under Libyan law did not make it a bare talaq ineligible for recognition. Following Quazi v Quazi [1980] AC 744, formal judicial proceedings involving an agency of the state with a function beyond merely recording the divorce can satisfy the statutory requirement.
2. Section 48 findings. The Egyptian court’s findings concerning residence, the alleged talaq, the applicable Libyan law and the Egyptian court’s competence were findings on the basis of which jurisdiction was assumed. Because the wife had not taken part in the proceedings, those findings were sufficient evidence rather than conclusive evidence, and the contrary could be shown.
3. Refusal of recognition. Recognition was refused under section 51(3)(a). The husband deliberately withheld notice that the Egyptian proceedings had been revived and pursued. The wife was thereby deprived of a reasonable opportunity to participate, challenge the alleged talaq and residence finding, and place the English proceedings and injunction before the Egyptian court. It was unnecessary to decide whether the talaq had actually been pronounced. The public-policy ground was not determined.
4. Divorce. The wife’s evidence of persistent abusive, belittling and humiliating conduct was accepted. She could not reasonably be expected to live with the husband. A decree nisi was granted on the ground of unreasonable behaviour. Directions were given for the ancillary-relief proceedings, which were to be listed before another judge.