Jonathan Cohen QC and Marc Delehanty, instructed by Grosvenor Law, successfully represented a claimant resisting a defendant’s challenge to the English Court’s jurisdiction. The judgment – Gray v Hurley  EWHC 1636 (QB) – breaks new ground on the question of when a defendant can be found to have lost or broken previous domicile in England such that Article 4(1), Brussels Regulation (recast) cannot be relied upon to bring proceedings in England.
Ms Gray brought claims based on resulting trusts, undue influence and unjust enrichment against Mr Hurley in relation to high value real estate, shares and a collection of hypercars (including the Ferrari F1 that Michael Schumacher drove to the 2003 World Championship) located in various jurisdictions: Switzerland, Italy and New Zealand. Those assets had been bought with her money whilst the parties were in a romantic relationship with each other. For his part, Mr Hurley commenced proceedings in New Zealand for orders for a division of assets under that country’s Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (which applies non-married co-habiting couples).
At this stage of the dispute in England, upon Mr Hurley having made a CPR Part 11 jurisdiction challenge application, the English court was concerned with whether Mr Hurley was domiciled in England for the purposes of Article 4(1) (and the connected Schedule 1, para 9 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001) and with his contention that any English domicile he may have had was broken as he left this country for good after the break-up of the relationship but before the issuing of proceedings.
In the judgment in Lavender J found:
It is anticipated that this judgment will be of great interest to practitioners dealing with issues of private international law for its central holding on the extended scope of Article 4(1).