The Family Court has dismissed an application to stay divorce and financial remedy proceedings in favour of Florida, so the case between Ms Bartok and Ms Brunner continues in England and Wales.
Key facts
- Who: Spouses in divorce and financial remedy proceedings where one applies for a stay in favour of a court abroad.
- From: 24 July 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: A and Z (No 4) (Forum Non Conveniens), Re [2026] EWFC 203
In A and Z (No 4) (Forum Non Conveniens), Re [2026] EWFC 203, handed down on 24 July 2026, Mr Justice McKendrick, sitting in the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, refused a stay of divorce and financial remedy proceedings. It is his fourth judgment in the proceedings. The parties are Ms Dorottya Bartok and Ms Angelique Brunner.
The spouses met in 2019. They first married in Hawaii on 20 July 2019, although the divorce from Ms Bartok's husband had not been finalised. A planned wedding in Florida in April 2020 was cancelled because of the Covid-19 pandemic. On 29 July 2020 Ms Brunner asked Ms Bartok to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, which was signed, and the parties married on 30 July 2020. They have no children and separated in September 2025. On 3 October 2025 Ms Bartok applied for divorce in England, saying she had been habitually resident in England and Wales for at least one year before the application.
Ms Brunner filed an Answer on 7 November 2025. The judge noted that it did not dispute Ms Bartok's habitual residence and that her only objection to jurisdiction was invalid service. The same day she applied for a stay, arguing that Florida was clearly the more convenient place to decide the divorce and finances.
The question
Should the English court stay the proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds because Florida was the more appropriate forum?
The decision
The judge dismissed the application. He was satisfied that the court had jurisdiction and directed that the divorce and financial remedy proceedings continue in England and Wales. The maintenance pending suit and legal services payment orders made on 27 March 2026 continue until the Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment.
The reasoning
Ms Brunner did not attend the hearing on 8 and 9 July 2026 and was not represented. The judge recorded that she had failed to comply with earlier orders. She did not file evidence as directed in support of her own stay application. She also did not fund or instruct the single joint expert in Florida law, although she had applied for that expert.
Her earlier evidence said her assets were in Florida. The judge noted that a later statement indicated that, contrary to the earlier one, most of her assets were not held there. He was told that her major business interest is a company seated in Maryland, and that she also has significant assets in California.
Ms Bartok said she has lived in England since 2016, has British citizenship, works in London and regards London as the centre of her life. She said Ms Brunner has never lived in Florida, and that whether Ms Brunner meets Florida's six-month residency requirement was contested and had not yet been ruled on. The judge heard evidence from two witnesses: Ms Bartok and her US attorney.
What this means for spouses in divorce proceedings with a foreign element
- An application to stay English proceedings in favour of another country was decided here on the evidence before the court. The applicant had not filed evidence as directed.
- The single joint expert in Florida law was never instructed, because the applicant did not comply with the directions made, although she had sought that expert.
- The interim maintenance pending suit and legal services payment orders were continued until the Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment.
Sources
- A and Z (No 4) (Forum Non Conveniens), Re [2026] EWFC 203, Family Court, 24 July 2026