In a recent High Court case* a Saudi businessman had attempted to invoke diplomatic immunity in order to avoid his former wife’s financial claims. In this case the parties had been married for 12 years and had a 13 year-old daughter. During the marriage they had lived in the UK.
However, when the marriage broke down, the wife issued divorce proceedings in the UK whilst the husband pronounced Talaq (a divorce equivalent) in Saudi Arabia. The wife was aware of the Saudi divorce.
Prior to the trial the man in question had remarried and had another child. The new family home was also in the UK.
His ex-wife had applied for financial remedy following the foreign divorce but her husband sought to strike out the claim on the basis of his diplomatic immunity. For this he relied upon his position as the Permanent Representative of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). There had been a certificate issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirming this position. However, the wife claimed that the post had been sought solely with the purpose of defeating her financial claims.
The previous authorities in the matter were such that, if the diplomat was not in post, there could only be unjustified privilege or immunity related solely to the private activities of the individual. There would therefore not be justification for the immunity as there was no legitimate claim sufficient to eclipse the wife’s right of access to Court.
In this case it was clear that the husband had no connection to St Lucia prior to his appointment and he had no specialised knowledge of the work which IMO was concerned with. In addition the husband had failed to undertake any kind of functions of his office and the appointment coincided with the relationship between him and his third wife.
The High Court was satisfied that the husband had only sought the diplomatic appointment for the intention of defeating the wife’s claims following breakdown of the marriage. Furthermore, there was evidence that the husband had gone to considerable lengths in the divorce of his first wife to avoid the jurisdiction of the English Court. The husband’s living arrangements in the future were also likely to continue to be in the UK. Therefore he failed the “but for” test set out in a previous case (Jiminez v IRC [2004] STC 371) so the immunity could only be exercised in relation to official functions and not in relation to his wife’s financial claim.
Nicola Whitley, Senior Associate and Head of Family at Swain & Co Solicitors says, “It is positive to know that, despite the best endeavours of the husband in this case, financial proceedings were still able to proceed. In all cases it is important that relevant financial disclosure can be provided and agreements reached to ensure both parties are provided for adequately in a financial sense on separation, however, it is especially important where one party is in a significantly stronger financial position than the other such as in this case.”
If you are currently going through a divorce and require assistance with financial matters then please contact one of our team today on 02392 492 967.
*Estrada v Al-Juffali [2016] EWHC 213 (Fam)
The post Recent case shows diplomatic immunity cannot be used to defeat financial claims. appeared first on Swain & Co Solicitors.