When a couple who have entered into a civil union relocate to another country, legal advice is essential to deal with any issues that may arise. Recently, a couple who had moved to the UK from France and were subsequently advised to dissolve their French civil union had to seek assistance from the Family Court in order to be able to enter into a civil partnership in this country.
The couple, both British nationals, had met and begun a relationship in 2009. They had both been married before and, while they were committed to each other, did not wish to get married. They retired to France and, in 2019, entered into a pacte civil de solidarité (PACS), which they regarded as a sign of their mutual commitment but lacking the formality of a marriage.
After family circumstances led them to move back to the UK, they were advised that it might be better to dissolve the PACS and enter into a civil partnership in the UK. They sent a form to dissolve the PACS to the local town hall in France and received a certificate confirming its dissolution. When they came to plan their civil partnership, however, the General Register Office took the view that the dissolution could not be recognised under UK law. Section 235(1)(b) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 states that, for an overseas dissolution to be recognised, one of the parties must be habitually resident or domiciled in, or a national of, the overseas country on the date of dissolution. The couple applied to the Court for a declaration that the dissolution was valid.
Declining to grant the declaration, the Court found that the dissolution could not be recognised by virtue of Section 235(1)(b). However, the Court agreed to make a declaration under Section 58(1)(c) of the Act that the PACS did not subsist after the date on which it had been dissolved. Public policy weighed highly in favour of doing so and the Court was satisfied that the PACS had not subsisted after the relevant date.
To ensure that the lack of recognition of the dissolution would not prevent the couple from entering into a civil partnership, the Court also made an additional declaration, under its inherent jurisdiction, that they were not currently married or civil partners and were free to enter into a marriage or civil partnership.