When separating couples have international connections, it’s not unusual for one spouse to start divorce proceedings in England while the other files abroad. The recent decision in A v B [2025] EWFC 377 (B) shines a spotlight on what happens next — and how the Family Court decides whether to stay English divorce proceedings in favour of an overseas case.

Background: Competing Divorce Petitions in England and Egypt

In A v B, both husband and wife were Egyptian nationals. The wife had lived in England since 2013 with their two children and issued her English divorce petition in December 2023. The husband, meanwhile, had begun proceedings in Egypt — but his case was not formally registered until five days after the wife’s petition was filed in England.

He asked the English court to stay the divorce proceedings, arguing that Egypt was the proper jurisdiction. The wife opposed, saying her life, home, and assets were all in England, and that she would face serious procedural and practical difficulties in the Egyptian courts.

The Law on Staying Divorce Proceedings

The power to stay a divorce petition arises under section 5(6) and Schedule 1, paragraph 9 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. The court may stay English proceedings if there are ongoing proceedings elsewhere and if “the balance of fairness (including convenience)” supports the foreign forum.

This is where the doctrine of forum non conveniens comes in — a principle used to decide which country’s court is the most appropriate place to determine the dispute.

Leading authorities on this issue include:

The Arguments

The husband contended that both parties were Egyptian by nationality and that the Egyptian proceedings were first in time. He said the English court lacked jurisdiction.

The wife argued that:

  • She had been habitually resident and domiciled in England for over a decade.
  • The children’s lives and family assets were based in the UK.
  • The Egyptian process was plagued by procedural flaws and service issues.
  • She was unlikely to achieve a fair financial outcome in Egypt, where women face significant legal hurdles in divorce cases.

The Decision: England Is the Proper Forum

HHJ Cope dismissed the husband’s application for a stay. The court found that:

  • Both parties were domiciled and habitually resident in England by 2023.
  • The bulk of the assets and their family home were in the UK.
  • The Egyptian proceedings had serious procedural defects, including invalid service.
  • England had the most real and substantial connection to the parties’ lives.

The judge concluded that the husband had not shown Egypt was “clearly more appropriate.” England was “plainly the natural forum.”

In a postscript, HHJ Cope commented that, having lost the stay application, it would be “unconscionable” for the husband to continue his proceedings in Egypt.

Forum Non Conveniens in Family Law

This case is a timely reminder that English courts take a holistic and practical approach to questions of jurisdiction. The forum non conveniens test is not about who files first, but about where the marriage truly belongs — where the parties live, where their assets are held, and where substantial justice can be done.

Parties cannot rely on tactical filings abroad to delay or frustrate proceedings here. Once the English court finds that it is the proper jurisdiction, it will not hesitate to refuse a stay — particularly where there are concerns about fairness, enforcement, or due process abroad.

Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: A v B 2025 EWFC 37, Competing divorce petitions, Cross border divorce disputes, Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, English divorce jurisdiction, Forum non conveniens, International divorce jurisdiction, Stay of divorce proceedings