Juffali v Juffali (Rev 1)

Under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, the court must decide both whether England and Wales is an appropriate forum and what financial relief, if any, should be granted. The enquiries are interrelated and require consideration of all the circumstances, including the parties’ connections, the absence or inadequacy of foreign provision, enforceability and the welfare of children.

In a needs-based claim, the marital standard of living is an important benchmark but is neither a ceiling nor a licence for unbridled expenditure. The court must assess reasonable housing and income needs by reference to the length of the marriage, continuing childcare responsibilities, the applicant’s age, resources and the transition towards independence. A fair award may therefore include staged reductions and need not reproduce the former marital lifestyle.

The applicant sought financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after the respondent dissolved their marriage by talaq in Saudi Arabia. The divorce made no financial provision for her. The parties had lived principally in England during their marriage and their daughter was born and educated here.

The respondent initially challenged the English proceedings on diplomatic-immunity grounds, but that defence had been rejected on appeal. He did not actively participate in the final hearing because of terminal illness, although he was represented. The issues were whether England and Wales was an appropriate forum and, if so, the extent of provision required for the applicant’s housing and income needs, the child’s future support and related property claims.

1. Forum. England and Wales was an appropriate forum under section 16 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The parties’ principal family base, the child’s home and education, the applicant’s long residence and the absence of any financial remedy in Saudi Arabia outweighed the international connections and potential enforcement difficulties.
2. Applicable approach. Part III is intended to alleviate the adverse consequences of no or inadequate foreign financial provision where there are substantial English connections. The court must consider sections 16, 17 and 18 together. The applicant could not receive more than she would have obtained in equivalent English proceedings, but the award was not confined to the minimum necessary to cure injustice.
3. Needs. The child’s welfare was the first consideration. The principal factors were the length of the marriage, the applicant’s continuing contribution to the child’s welfare, the marital standard of living, her age and the respondent’s resources. The marital standard was a starting point and benchmark, but not a lodestar. A needs-based award required scrutiny of the budget and a gradual transition towards independence.
4. The applicant was entitled to an independently owned London home, but a £60 million housing fund was excessive. £18 million was allowed for London housing. A second English property and continuing full costs of the Californian property were not justified, although provision was made for a smaller United States home. A capitalised income fund of £44.3 million was allowed, producing £2.5 million net annually, reducing by 33% in 2026 and by a further 25% at age 75. After credit for the applicant’s resources, the respondent was ordered to fund £53.33 million.
5. Provision for the child was to be secured by a capitalised lump sum, assessed at approximately £225,000 annually. No separate capitalised provision was made for the applicant’s extended family. The blue diamond ring was found to have been gifted to the applicant; absent acceptance of the respondent’s monetary offer, a declaration of ownership would be made under section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

The judgment records that the respondent’s diplomatic-immunity defence had been rejected at first instance and that the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on the substantive immunity issue: [2016] EWCA Civ 176. The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal. The present judgment determined the substantive Part III financial-relief application.