INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Alex Carruthers, Oliver Heeks and Sian Brooks, Hughes Fowler Carruthers
vide for better or worse financial relief depending on the circumstances under which the relation - ship broke down. In Austria, for example, if there is a finding that one party is the cause of the breakdown of a relationship then the other party is entitled to significant maintenance. It is worth examining each of these areas in more detail here. Change in status One of the most striking aspects witnessed in this area during the past ten years is the signifi - cant increase in the number of jurisdictions that recognise relationships between individuals of the same sex. Thirty or so years ago, there was no jurisdiction in the world that legally recog - nised these relationships but now the majority of jurisdictions in the world do so. As a result, countries must have laws in place to determine what will happen when such relationships break down. The sensitive nature of this evolution is a clas - sic example of the trend that this overview high - lights – namely, that the law has to reflect the society in which it is embedded. As society has evolved, so too has the law. In countries where same-sex relationships are recognised (and thus those jurisdictions deal with the breakdown of such relationships), there can be differences between the legal terminology – ie, whether it is a civil partnership or a marriage and therefore whether it is a formal “divorce” – but the similari - ties normally outweigh the differences. Another change that has happened in some countries concerns the grounds on which a dis - solution of the relationship can take place. In simplistic terms, there are generally two forms of “grounds” – in some countries, the relation - ship can only be dissolved following the actions
of the party who caused the breakdown. In other words, “fault” needs to be found. Some jurisdic - tions are not “fault”-based and only require a period of time to have elapsed before a divorce is allowed or require a statement that the mar- riage has broken down. In at least one juris - diction (England and Wales), there has been a recent move away from a “fault-based” system to a non-fault-based system. In a global world, where parties move from coun - try to country with ease, another issue that must be considered when advising on these matters is the jurisdiction in which proceedings can be issued to dissolve the relationship. In general, jurisdiction in all countries is either founded on the parties’ nationality (or, in some countries, their domicile) or residency. Given that some countries can have significant - ly different financial regimes upon relationship breakdown, the question of whether a party can get divorced in different jurisdictions can be of the upmost importance. Deliberately choosing one country over another to issue proceedings has given rise to the colloquial term “divorce tourism”. This generates a multitude of legal issues that may arise, including how either jurisdiction deals with the claims of the competing jurisdiction, and may evolve into complicated and sophisti - cated legal disputes that can clog up the courts for many months or years. The money at stake for ultra high net worth parties may, however, justify this expense. Financial consequences upon relationship breakdown The difference in financial consequences if a couple’s finances are dealt with in different juris - dictions can be vast. The laws that determine the
7
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook