A landmark Court of Appeal ruling has delivered judicial clarity on domicile of choice, domicile of origin and forum disputes in international matrimonial proceedings.
The judgment in Ferrara v Ferrara, in which UK law firm Mills & Reeve represented Mrs Ferrara, is expected to become an important authority for family law practitioners dealing with cross-border divorce and financial remedy claims and which, post-Brexit, are increasingly common.
The court dismissed Ferrucio Ferrara’s appeal against an earlier ruling that Caroline Ferrara was domiciled in England and Wales when she issued her application for divorce in 2024 and upheld England as the appropriate jurisdiction, despite the couple having lived in Italy since 2019.
The ruling offers rare appellate guidance in an area where relatively few cases reach determination and confirms that long-term residence abroad does not necessarily extinguish an English domicile where sufficiently strong connecting factors remain. It also underlines the court’s willingness to intervene where foreign proceedings could result in materially unfair financial outcomes.
The case involved Australian-born model Caroline Frances Ferrara, who instructed Melissa Lesson (pictured), David Hickmott and Ciara Moore, of Mills & Reeve.
Mrs Ferrara met Italian businessman Ferrucio Ferrera in London in 2004. Both had lived in the city for some years, and they started cohabiting in Chelsea in 2006. The matrimonial home in Belgravia was purchased the following year and they married in Italy on 5 April 2008 before resuming life in London immediately after the marriage.
In April 2019 Mr Ferrara returned to live in Milan, followed in the summer of that year by Mrs Ferrara and the couple’s two children. The children were born in London and hold British, Australian and Italian citizenship.
The marriage broke down in 2023 and the family home in Belgravia was sold the same year.
Following the marriage ceremony in Italy, Mrs Ferrara, who did not speak Italian, unknowingly entered into a Separazione dei Beni agreement when signing the register. Under Italian law, signing up to the regime – which is also known as a separation of assets – means each spouse retains exclusive ownership of any property and assets they have acquired before and during the marriage in their sole names.
The effect was that Mrs Ferrara would not be entitled to any of her husband’s assets if the couple were divorced in Italy. As Mrs Ferrara had retired from modelling and spent the marriage raising the couple’s two children, that would have left her in great financial difficulty.
Mills & Reeve partner Melissa Lesson explained: “At the time divorce proceedings were initiated in England and Italy, 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. 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.
“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.”
There are few reported cases that deal comprehensively with the concepts of domicile of origin, domicile of choice and appropriate forum, Lesson added, despite such cross-border disputes being relatively common, largely as a result of the considerable cost and time consequences of such proceedings.
“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.”
Lesson added: “We’re incredibly pleased with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. Not only does it serve as a positive outcome for our client, but going forward, it may also assist other couples who have called England home. It confirms that notwithstanding not living in England for a considerable period of time, parties may retain a domicile in England, allowing them to seize jurisdiction in divorce proceedings.
“There may be a lot of people currently sitting in unhappy marriages who are feeling trapped and unable to leave, but this case has shown that hope need not be lost. They may still be able to be supported by the English legal system in divorce proceedings and matrimonial and financial cases.”
Ferrucio Ferrara v Caroline Frances Ferrara [2026] EWCA Civ 512
