MA v SK

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 addresses inadequate financial provision following an overseas divorce. The court must establish jurisdiction and decide whether England and Wales is an appropriate venue. A claim is not an opportunity to obtain the more generous outcome available in an ordinary English financial-remedy case. If relief is appropriate, the court has a broad discretion and must consider all the circumstances, including foreign remedies and enforceability. Here, those matters justified a needs-based award, but not full sharing. The award comprised the equity in the London and Cannes properties.

The Wife brought claims concerning beneficial ownership and occupation of the London property, financial relief after the parties’ Saudi Arabian divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, and S Investments NV’s possession claim.

The parties had married, divorced and remarried. Their principal lives and substantial assets were in Saudi Arabia, but they had long-standing connections with England and Wales and had occupied the London property as a matrimonial home. The central issues were jurisdiction, appropriateness of intervention, beneficial ownership, the Wife’s needs and the appropriate relief.

1. Jurisdiction and appropriateness. The Wife satisfied Part III jurisdiction through habitual residence and domicile. England and Wales was an appropriate venue, having regard to the parties’ connections, the absence of a Saudi remedy, the London matrimonial home, the Wife’s future residence and enforceability.
2. Applicable approach. Applying Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, Part III alleviates the adverse consequences of inadequate foreign provision. It is distinct from an ordinary application under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Relief cannot exceed what would have been available had the proceedings taken place in England and Wales.
3. The court rejected the alleged agreement to transfer the residential properties. The transfers were motivated by tax or other financial considerations, and the Husband retained beneficial ownership. S Investments held the London property as his nominee. The reasoning in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 supported examining whether the corporate structure reflected the true beneficial ownership of a matrimonial home.
4. The court adopted a needs-based approach, moderated by the international context. It assessed total needs at £10.5 million, deducted the Wife’s resources and awarded the equity in the London and Cannes properties in full and final settlement.
5. The London property and S Investments shareholding were transferred to the Wife, subject to an indemnity for the mortgage guarantee. The Husband’s beneficial interest in Cannes was transferred. There was a clean break. No order was made on the Married Women’s Property Act and Part IV proceedings, and S Investments’ possession claim was dismissed.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.