Cramer v Cramer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHEN BROWN,LORD JUSTICE MUSTILL,LORD JUSTICE BALCOMBE |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Civ J0512-8 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 86/0479 |
| Date | 12 May 1986 |
[1986] EWCA Civ J0512-8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF HER HONOUR JUDGE COLES Q.C.
SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT (FAMILY DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Stephen Brown
Lord Justice Mustill
Lord Justice Balcombe
86/0479
MR J.F.Q. FENWICK, instructed by Messrs Kenwright & Cox, appeared for the Appellant (Respondent).
MR V. LE GRICE, instructed by Messrs William J. Stoffel & Co. (Beckenham), appeared for the Respondent (Petitioner).
This is an appeal by Dr Philippe Walter Cramer, the respondent in divorce proceedings, from a decision of Her Honour Judge Coles made on 3rd January of this year at the Royal Courts of Justice. The learned judge had before her a preliminary issue in relation to the divorce suit brought by the respondent to this appeal, Dr Elisabeth Cramer. as to whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain her petition for dissolution of marriage on the basis that she had established a domicile of choice in England. The learned judge heard the evidence of the petitioner in the divorce suit, Madam Cramer, and a Dr Martin to whom I shall refer in due course.
The facts of the case are highly unusual. The parties to the divorce suit, Dr Elisabeth Cramer and Dr Philippe Cramer, are both French citizens who have lived, apart from a short sojourn abroad in the U.S.A., all their lives in France. They were married in France on 11th June 1970, and they lived together in France thereafter except for one year when they were in the United States. They have four children now fifteen, fourteen, seven and five years of age. The children have been brought up in France and have been at school in France.
In October 1984 Dr Elisabeth Cramer came to this country and she met Dr Martin, who is the Dean of Medicine at Sheffield University and a consultant physician. Dr Cramer had similar interests in the same field of work. They formed an association. Madam Cramer decided, so she said, that she wished to make her future life with Dr Martin, and he for his part made a similar decision in relation to Dr Elisabeth Cramer.
On 7th September 1985 Madam Cramer came to this country bringing with her her two younger children. On 20th September 1985, just two weeks later, she presented a petition for the dissolution of her marriage in the High Court of Justice, claiming that she was domiciled in England and Wales. The petition alleged that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that the respondent husband had behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with him. It contained particulars of alleged irresponsibility with regard to money matters. It also alleged that he had displayed a lack of interest in his sexual relationship with her, and that he had become largely unapproachable. The petition concluded by stating: "On the 8th. day of September, 1985 the Petitioner", that is, Madam Cramer, "left the Respondent with the intention of bringing co-habitation to an end."
Having regard to the facts disclosued, Dr Philippe Cramer raised the issue of domicile and challenged the assertion of his wife that she had acquired an English domicile of choice by the time that she presented her petition for divorce on 20th September last year after spending 14 days in England. That was the issue which the learned judge tried as a preliminary issue.
The evidence which she heard from Madam Cramer and also from Dr Martin was evidence about the development of their relationship; the fact that they both wished to marry if and when it should become possible for them to marry, because not only was Madam Cramer married, as she still is, but also Dr Martin was a married man. At the time the matter was before the learned judge his evidence was that his wife had presented a petition for divorce which he was not proposing to contest. The evidence before the learned judge was to the effect that Madam Cramer had arrived in this country intending to remain here and to marry Dr Martin when that should become possible.
The learned judge heard a good deal of evidence about the circumstances of Madam Cramer: the fact that she had apart from one year in the United States, lived all her life in France; that she was employed by a French medical foundation, and was in this country from September 1985 upon a year's paid detachment with the Wellcome Foundation in this country, still, however, being employed by the medical foundation in France. She said she was not going to continue to continue in that employment when her present contract expired in September 1986. The learned judge also heard about the property interests of Madam Cramer in France—that she still had properties in the south of France which she had not disposed of—and she also heard evidence as to the position of the children and in particular their educational situation. The evidence was that Madam Cramer had not informed either the French medical institute by whom she was employed of her intention not to remain indefinitely in their employment; nor had she informed the children's school that it was not her intention to continue to send the children to the school in France, which was an independent school. The learned judge also heard evidence that Madam Cramer had not yet achieved a permanent residence, in the physical sense, in this country and was living in rented accommodation pending the resolution of her position with Dr Martin and her employment.
The learned judge clearly considered the case to be a highly unusual case on its facts; indeed, she said: "This is a very unusual case—I stress that—and it must be rare indeed that a situation such as this has occurred…: that someone who is still married in another country can come to the United Kingdom with a total certainty that when she is divorced and the co-habitee is divorced, that they will marry. That is the certainty that I have....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H v H (Queen's Proctor intervening) (validity of Japanese divorce)
...All ER Rep 462, HL. Chaudhary v Chaudhary [1984] 3 All ER 1017, [1985] Fam 19, [1985] 2 WLR 350, [1985] FLR 476, CA. Cramer v Cramer [1987] 1 FLR 116, Cruh v Cruh [1945] 2 All ER 545. El Fadl v El Fadl[2000] 1 FCR 685, [2000] 1 FLR 175. Eroglu v Eroglu [1994] FCR 525, [1994] 2 FLR 287. Fuld......
-
Fiona Joan Sarah Lee (Petitioner) v David Pelham Lee
...to a domicile of choice is on the person alleging the change. As the President, when he was Browne L.J., stated in Kramer v. Kramer [1987] 1 FLR 116: 'The burden of proving the change of domicile is a heavy one' …" 36 and requires what was referred to in another authority as "irrefragable' ......
-
Elsie Allen and Keith Hateley as Executors of Winfred Johnson deceased v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, SPC 00481
...referred to in the Decision: In re S (Hospital Patient: Foreign Curator) [1995] 3 WLR 596 Tee v Tee [1973] 3 All ER 1105 Cramer v Cramer [1987] 1FLR 116SC/3135/2004 2 ...