Court of Appeal clarifies cross-border divorce disputes and forum after Brexit

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Ferrara v Ferrara [2026] EWCA Civ 512 provides important guidance on how English courts approach cross-border divorce disputes following Brexit. 

The case was led by Melissa Lesson, Partner at Mills & Reeve, who represented Mrs Ferrara and successfully secured the right for her client to pursue financial claims in England. 

For internationally mobile families, the judgment highlights a critical point: where a divorce is dealt with can have a significant impact on the financial outcome. 

Why this case matters 

Cross-border family disputes are increasingly common. Families often move countries for work, tax or lifestyle reasons, without fully understanding how different legal systems deal with family law issues, including divorce and financial claims. 

Since Brexit, the rules around which country’s courts deal with a divorce (known as jurisdiction) have become less predictable. As a result, issues such as domicile (where a person considers their permanent home to be) and forum conveniens (the most appropriate country to hear the case) have taken on greater importance in determining where divorce proceedings will be heard. 

Ferrara is one of the first Court of Appeal decisions to consider these issues in the post-Brexit landscape. 

The background 

The couple had built their married life in England before relocating to Italy. When divorce proceedings began in both England and Italy in early 2024, the husband argued that the case should not be heard in England.

He said that the wife had become domiciled in Italy following the move, meaning the English courts could not hear the case.

This had significant consequences. Under Italian law, the applicable matrimonial property regime could have left the wife with no share of assets held in her husband’s sole name, despite her contributions during the marriage.

Melissa Lesson, Partner at Mills & Reeve, acted for Mrs Ferrara throughout the proceedings, and working alongside a specialist cross-border legal team successfully challenged this, helping to protect Mrs Ferrara’s financial position.

Domicile: more than just where you live 

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal concluded that the wife remained domiciled in England. 

The decision reinforces a key principle: 
Domicile is not simply about where you are living. It also depends on intention – specifically, whether you intend to live permanently or indefinitely in a country. 

In Ferrara, the court looked at the bigger picture including: 

• where the wife had lived for most of her adult life 
• where the family’s relationships were rooted 
• contemporaneous evidence showing her reluctance to relocate to Italy on a permanent basis 

This emphasis on intention means that even long periods spent abroad may not be enough to change your domicile. 

The importance of evidence 

One of the most practical aspects of the case was the weight given to evidence created at the time of the move from England to Italy. 

Emails written when the move was being discussed played a key role in demonstrating the wife didn't intend to remain in Italy permanently.  

For clients and advisers, this is an important reminder: keeping records of decisions especially around major life changes like relocation can make a real difference later on. 

Forum conveniens: a practical approach to choosing the right country 

The court also looked at which country was best placed to deal with the financial aspects of the divorce. 

The Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision that England was the most appropriate country, despite the family living in Italy.  

A key factor was the likely outcome in Italy. Proceedings there risked leaving the wife without any meaningful financial provision and would likely have led to further claims in England after the divorce.  

This confirms that the court will take a practical, outcome-focused approach. It is not just about where parties and assets are located, but whether a country’s courts can deliver a fair result. 

A warning for international families 

This case highlights a broader issue: many families relocate without considering the legal implications. 

Internal research by Mills & Reeve suggests that while a significant proportion of UK adults have considered moving abroad, very few would seek legal advice on how divorce or child arrangement laws differ between countries. 

The risks can be significant, particularly where one person is financially dependent or where the destination country operates a very different approach to finances on relationship breakdown.

What does this mean in practice? 

The decision is likely to shape how international divorces are handled in several ways: 

• Greater focus on evidence – particularly around intention and relocation decisions 
• More strategic use of jurisdiction arguments at an early stage 
• Increased scrutiny of financial outcomes in competing jurisdictions 
• Potential for earlier settlement once it becomes clear which country will deal with the case  

Domicile and forum are no longer technical side issues. They sit at the centre of strategic decision-making in international divorce cases. 

Looking ahead 

While Ferrara provides helpful clarity, disputes like this will always remain fact specific. Outcomes will continue to depend heavily on the detail of each family’s circumstances. 

What Ferrara does offer is a roadmap. It confirms that English courts will look beyond formal arrangements to the realities of a family’s life and will consider the practical consequences of where a case is heard. 

Final thoughts 

For internationally mobile families, the message is clear: 
Jurisdiction matters. 

Where proceedings are brought can determine whether or not you receive fair financial provision or face significant disadvantages. Early legal advice and careful planning are essential when relocating across borders.

Our content explained