Background
Ms Angelique Brunner and Ms Dorottya Bartok married in the United States in 2020, after signing a Florida-law prenuptial agreement, and separated in September 2025. Bartok, who had lived in England since 2016 and later obtained British citizenship, began divorce proceedings in England in October 2025 and sought financial remedies. Brunner commenced proceedings in Florida and Colorado and applied to stay the English case, arguing that Florida was the more appropriate forum.
Brunner relied on her US citizenship, the prenuptial agreement, the location of her business interests and other assets, and the asserted practical advantages of obtaining evidence and enforcing orders in the United States. She later failed to file the evidence directed for her stay application, fund and instruct the jointly appointed Florida-law expert, comply with interim maintenance and legal-services payment orders, or attend the forum hearing. Bartok opposed a stay, emphasizing her longstanding home and personal connections in London, her inability to travel readily to the United States, and the unresolved question whether Florida had jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
McKendrick J dismissed Brunner’s application for a stay under Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. The court was satisfied that the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction and was not persuaded that the balance of fairness and convenience required the Florida proceedings to be determined first.
England had a substantial connection to the marriage and was the center of Bartok’s life. By contrast, Florida’s jurisdiction remained contested, Brunner had not produced the directed evidence concerning her residence, and her own evidence indicated that significant assets and business interests were located in other US states rather than Florida. The Florida choice-of-forum provision in the prenuptial agreement and the location of US assets did not outweigh the broader fairness considerations, including accessibility, delay, expense, and the possibility of later English proceedings for financial relief.
The English divorce and financial-remedy proceedings were therefore directed to continue. The court also continued its maintenance pending suit and legal-services payment orders until the Financial Dispute Resolution appointment.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking a discretionary matrimonial stay must establish that fairness and convenience favor allowing the foreign proceedings to be resolved first.
- A foreign forum clause in a prenuptial agreement and the presence of assets abroad are relevant but do not automatically determine the appropriate forum.
- Uncertainty over the foreign court’s jurisdiction, together with a failure to provide ordered evidence, can weigh heavily against a stay.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the fact-sensitive approach English family courts take when parallel divorce proceedings are pending outside the United Kingdom. The court evaluates the parties’ real connections, access to justice, likely delay and expense, witnesses, assets, enforceability, and the practical consequences of litigating in each jurisdiction rather than treating priority of filing or contractual forum language as decisive.
It also underscores that applicants must actively substantiate and pursue their own forum challenges. Nonparticipation does not prevent the court from deciding the application when the absent party had notice and a fair opportunity to present evidence.