A law firm acting for an Australian-born woman and her former husband – from Italy – demonstrates some of the risks that certain jurisdictions present, and why the English courts system retain important advantages.

Last week, the Court of Appeal London issued a ruling that lawyers in the case said will be a go-to reference point for international family law cases for years to come. 

The ruling in the case of Ferrara v Ferrara, clarifies the position for anyone who is seeking a divorce and financial remedy proceedings in England, regardless of whether they’ve lived outside England for several years. It is an important reminder of the protective nature of the English Family Court, an account of the business from Mills & Reeve said.  

The case involved Australian-born model, Mrs Caroline Ferrara who instructed Melissa Lesson (pictured below), David Hickmott and Ciara Moore of Mills & Reeve. Others involved in her case included Andrzej Bojarski KC and Hannah Jones of 36 Family. Mrs Ferrara was represented in Italy by Armando Cecatiello of Studio Legale Cecatiello. 

Mr Ferruccio Ferrara was represented by law firm Vardags in London (counsel was Philip Marshall). WealthBriefing contacted Vardags yesterday for comment and may update this article in due course.

The case was held before Lord Justice Moylan, Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Miles in the Court of Appeal Civil Division.

The case
Mrs Ferrara met her Italian businessman husband in London, where they lived for 20 years. They married in Italy and, unbeknownst to Mrs Ferarra who did not speak Italian at the time, they entered a “Separazione dei Beni” matrimonial regime upon signing the marriage register. Signing up to the regime – which is also known as a separation of assets – means that under Italian law, each spouse retains exclusive ownership of any property and assets they have acquired before and during the marriage in their sole names.  

This meant that should the couple get divorced in Italy, Mrs Ferrara would not be entitled to share in any of her husband’s capital assets. Given that Mrs Ferrara had retired from modelling and spent the marriage raising the couple’s two children, that would have left Mrs Ferrara in significant financial difficulty, Mills & Reeve said.

The Mills & Reeve note said that after Brexit, it is increasingly common for there to be a dispute about which jurisdiction is more suitable as it can have a significant impact on the final financial outcome. If England has jurisdiction, then the laws of England will apply. This includes protection from unfair marital terms and, unless there’s a prenuptial agreement in place, assets will be divided fairly in accordance with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and with wide discretion from judges. The focus of the Family Courts on fairness and meeting needs, still makes England a popular divorce destination for international families, the law firm continued.  

“At the time that divorce proceedings were initiated in England and Italy in early 2024, the parties had been living in Milan since 2019. However, England was where Mrs Ferrara had spent the majority of her adult life, having moved to London in her late teens,” Lesson, partner at Mills & Reeve, said in the note. “It was where the parties met and lived much of their married life. It was where their children were born. And, together with Mrs Ferrara’s very strong reluctance to move to Milan – a move that was instigated by her husband to take advantage of the favourable new tax regime in Italy – Mrs Ferrara asserted that she had acquired and retained a domicile of choice in England.

Melissa Lesson

“The High Court agreed with Mrs Ferrara and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal concluding that Mrs Ferrara was not only able to seize the English jurisdiction, but that England was also the most appropriate forum for divorce proceedings, especially as a divorce in Italy would likely leave Mrs Ferrara destitute,” Lesson said. 

In England and Wales when it comes to the division of marital assets there is a focus on fairness rather than a 50-50 split. This means that the court will take into consideration a range of different factors including both parties’ current and future financial statuses, their lifestyle during the marriage, any children or dependants as well as any savings, pensions, investments, property and business assets accrued during the course of the marriage, Mills & Reeve said.

However, this judicial discretion is not something that is observed in every country as standard, and Italy is one such country, it said. 

“Whilst cross-border disputes are relatively common, they often settle and there are few reported cases that deal comprehensively with the concepts of domicile of origin, domicile of choice and appropriate forum. That is largely as a result of the considerable cost and time consequences of such proceedings,” Lesson said. 

“The outcome of this case, and the very detailed judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal offers invaluable clarity into this area of law. It highlights the potentially disastrous financial prejudice to the financially weaker party that can arise when moving to another jurisdiction and the willingness of the English courts to step in where appropriate.  

“Following last week’s Court of Appeal ruling, Mr Ferrara’s appeal has been dismissed on all counts, and Mrs Ferrara is now able to pursue the divorce to its conclusion in England,” Mills & Reeve added.