In Bartok v Brunner [2026] EWFC 146, a High Court judge sitting in the Family Court on 13 May 2026 gave judgment in a contested international divorce, covering interim payment orders and attempts at service.
Key facts
- Who: Spouses in divorce and financial remedies proceedings where the courts of more than one country may be involved
- From: 13 May 2026
- Source: Bartok v Brunner (Re A and Z) (No. 3) (Enforcement and Publication) [2026] EWFC 146
Mr Justice McKendrick gave a short ex tempore judgment in the Family Court on 13 May 2026. It was the fourth time he had heard the proceedings, which involve a contested divorce application and a related application for financial remedies.
Background
Ms Bartok and Ms Brunner married in the United States on 30 July 2020 and have no children. They separated in September 2025. On 6 October 2025 Ms Bartok applied for divorce in England and Wales. A deputy district judge allowed service of the application on Ms Brunner in the United States by an alternative method. Ms Brunner applied to set that order aside.
In a judgment handed down on 18 March 2026, the judge set aside the alternative service order and was not satisfied about service. He understood both sides to accept that the court could make interim orders under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for maintenance pending suit, and a legal services payment order under section 22ZA. The dispute was about the amount.
The interim orders
The judge ordered maintenance pending suit of £13,849 a month from 18 March 2026. He also ordered backdated maintenance of £36,573.08 for the period from 5 November 2025 to 18 March 2026. He made legal services payment orders, including lump sums and monthly payments of £100,000 including VAT from 6 April to 6 July 2026, until a total of £700,000 including VAT had been paid.
At Ms Brunner's request, he directed a hearing in July 2026 to decide whether Florida would be a more convenient forum than England and Wales. The judge said it was his understanding, and that of Ms Bartok's legal team, that by asking for that hearing Ms Brunner was accepting there was jurisdiction in both England and Wales and Florida. Both parties agreed to take no further steps in any other jurisdiction, other than for a stay, while that dispute is decided.
The order was finalised at a hearing on 27 March 2026. The judge noted that no permission to appeal was sought at that hearing and that no application to appeal the order was made.
Compliance and service
The judge noted Ms Bartok's evidence that the orders had not been complied with. Ms Brunner had instead paid about £5,500 in each of April and May 2026. The judge said this was a sum she had decided for herself and not the sum the court considered appropriate. Ms Bartok's evidence was that no other payments had been made.
The court also heard evidence of attempts to serve Ms Brunner at an address in Miami, Florida. These included an attempt on 10 February 2026 and further attempts between 14 and 20 April 2026, some of them through official channels. The judge also had an opinion, dated 13 April 2026, from a Florida attorney on service in that state.
What this means for people in cross-border divorce and financial remedies proceedings
The judgment shows how one court dealt with interim maintenance and legal services payment orders where the paying spouse had paid a sum of her own choosing rather than the sums ordered. It also shows that questions of service abroad and of the most convenient forum can run alongside such orders.
Sources
- Bartok v Brunner (Re A and Z) (No. 3) (Enforcement and Publication) [2026] EWFC 146, Family Court, 13 May 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/146