Since Brexit, a British couple living in France who decide to separate faces a question that did not exist a few years ago: in which country should the divorce be filed, under which law, and will the other country recognise the result? Before 1 January 2021, European rules answered most of these questions automatically. The divorce could circulate freely between France and England under the Brussels II bis Regulation, and the applicable law was coordinated by the Rome III Regulation. Today, the United Kingdom is a third State for European private international law, while France continues to apply European regulations that still treat British spouses living on French soil largely as before — with important exceptions. This guide explains, for British nationals resident in France, which French court can hear the divorce, which of the four French divorce routes fits the situation, which law governs the marriage breakdown, how an English court treats a French divorce (and vice versa), and how to challenge a refusal at each stage.
A French divorce is pronounced by the juge aux affaires familiales (the family judge of the judicial court), except for the most amicable form — divorce by mutual consent without a judge — which is recorded by a notaire (a French public officer who authenticates deeds). The applicable European texts remain central on the French side: Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019, known as Brussels II ter, governs jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in matrimonial matters, and Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010, known as Rome III, governs the applicable law. On the English side, recognition of a French divorce is now governed by domestic English law, principally Part II of the Family Law Act 1986. Understanding how these two systems meet is the key to avoiding a divorce that is valid in one country and ignored in the other.
I. Divorcing before the French courts after Brexit: jurisdiction and the right procedure
Brexit did not remove British residents from the protection of the European jurisdiction rules when they sue in France. The French judge still applies Brussels II ter first, and only if no European criterion is met does the judge fall back on French domestic jurisdiction rules. Once jurisdiction is established, the couple must choose between four divorce routes, and that choice has practical consequences for timing, cost and enforceability in England.
A. Which French court can hear the divorce of a British couple
The starting point is Article 3 of the Brussels II ter Regulation, which lists alternative connecting factors. A French court of an EU Member State has jurisdiction where, among other cases, the habitual residence of both spouses is in France, their last habitual residence was in France with one spouse still living there, the respondent habitually resides in France, or — for a joint application — either spouse habitually resides in France. A French trial court recently recalled the framework in these terms: “Le Règlement (UE) 2019/1111 du Conseil en date du 25 juin 2019, dit également « règlement Bruxelles II ter », est relatif à la compétence, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière matrimoniale et en matière de responsabilité parentale, ainsi qu’à l’enlèvement international d’enfants.” In that case, where one spouse was Italian, the court observed that “La requête présente un élément d’extranéité, dans la mesure où l’époux est de nationalité italienne de sorte qu’il y a lieu de se prononcer sur la compétence au plan international de la présente juridiction ainsi que sur la loi applicable”, before concluding: “Au regard de la résidence habituelle des époux située en France, le juge français est compétent aux fins de connaître de la présente demande en divorce” (Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 11 June 2026, RG No 25/00708, full decision on courdecassation.fr). The reasoning applies identically to British spouses: nationality is irrelevant once habitual residence in France is established.
The Court of Cassation has confirmed that this European jurisdiction rule applies regardless of the spouses’ nationality. Ruling under the previous Brussels II bis Regulation, whose Article 3 works the same way, the First Civil Chamber held: “Il résulte de ce texte qu’une juridiction d’un Etat membre est compétente pour connaître d’une demande en divorce, dès lors que l’un des critères alternatifs de compétence qu’il énonce est localisé sur le territoire de cet Etat, peu important que les époux soient ressortissants d’Etats tiers ou que l’époux défendeur soit domicilié dans un Etat tiers. Cette règle de compétence est exclusive de toute règle de compétence de droit international privé commun.” (Cass. 1re civ., 24 June 2020, Nos 19-11.714 and 19-11.870, full decision on courdecassation.fr). Since Brexit, British nationals are nationals of a third State, exactly like the Moldovan, Bulgarian and Russian nationals in that case — and the French court remains competent on the sole basis of habitual residence in France.
Within France, the locally competent court is designated by Article 1070 of the Code of Civil Procedure: the family judge of the place where the family resides, or, if the parents live apart, the judge of the residence of the parent with whom the minor children habitually live where parental authority is exercised jointly, with fallback criteria down to the defendant’s residence. In practice, a British couple living in Paris files before the Paris judicial court; service-public.fr summarises the filing routes for each form of divorce (service-public.fr, divorce by mutual consent). Where no European criterion points to France — for example, both spouses having already left France — the old French jurisdiction privileges of Article 14 of the Civil Code (a foreigner may be sued in France for obligations contracted in France with a French national) and Article 15 of the Civil Code (a French national may be sued in France even for obligations contracted abroad) can still matter in mixed Franco-British couples: the French spouse can bring the British spouse before the French court, or be sued there.
Proving habitual residence is a question of fact, and British applicants should prepare for it as carefully as for the divorce itself. French judges look at the centre of interests: the lease or title deeds of the French home, French tax assessments, school enrolment for the children, registration with the health system, and the residence permit held since Brexit. A spouse who splits time between London and the Dordogne should file where daily life is genuinely anchored, because the other spouse can contest jurisdiction, and a successful challenge wastes months. Utility bills alone rarely decide the point; a bundle showing work, schooling, healthcare and tax in France does.
Two practical warnings follow. First, if divorce proceedings are already pending in England, the French court seised second must examine lis pendens: under Brussels II ter, a court of a Member State seised second in favour of a third-State court does not benefit from the automatic intra-EU lis pendens mechanism, and parallel proceedings can produce conflicting decisions. Filing first in the strategically right forum, after advice, avoids a race. Second, a refusal by the French court to accept jurisdiction can be appealed: the ordinary time limit for appeal in contentious matters is one month (Article 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “Le délai de recours par une voie ordinaire est d’un mois en matière contentieuse”), and a point of law can then go to the Court of Cassation.
B. The four French divorce routes and which one suits a British couple
French law offers four grounds for divorce, listed in Article 229 of the Civil Code: mutual consent, acceptance of the breakdown, definitive alteration of the bond, and fault. Spouses may also switch routes during the proceedings (Article 247 of the Civil Code), which gives useful flexibility when an amicable start turns sour.
The simplest route is divorce by mutual consent without a judge: both spouses, each assisted by their own lawyer, sign a private agreement countersigned by the lawyers and file it with a notaire. This route is unavailable, however, where a minor child asks to be heard by the judge, or where a spouse is under a legal protection regime (Article 229-2 of the Civil Code). Where a judge is needed, the spouses may jointly seek a judicial mutual-consent divorce by submitting their agreement for approval (Article 230 of the Civil Code). For British couples who agree on everything — children, house in France, maintenance — the non-judicial route is fast and inexpensive, but it has a cross-border weakness: a private deed is not a court decision, and its circulation in England relies on contract and registration effects rather than on the European recognition regime. Where English recognition of each financial term matters, a judicial divorce order is the safer vehicle.
The second route is divorce on accepted breakdown (Article 233 of the Civil Code): the spouses agree that the marriage must end but leave the consequences to the judge. It suits couples who agree on the principle but disagree on money or children. The third route is definitive alteration (Article 237 of the Civil Code): one spouse can obtain the divorce where the marriage bond is definitively altered, which Article 238 of the Civil Code defines as a one-year separation at the date of the claim. This route is the workhorse for British expatriates where one spouse has already returned to the United Kingdom and the other remains in France: after a year apart, no fault needs proving and no consent is needed. The fourth route is fault (Article 242 of the Civil Code), requiring a serious or repeated breach of marital duties making continued common life intolerable. Fault remains available but is rarely advisable for cross-border couples: it lengthens proceedings, hardens positions on children, and adds nothing to the English recognition analysis.
Legal aid (aide juridictionnelle) deserves a mention because British residents often assume it is reserved for French nationals. It is not: anyone habitually resident in France who meets the means test can apply, whatever their nationality, and coverage extends to cross-border family cases. The application goes to the legal aid office of the judicial court, with proof of income and residence. Where aid is granted, it covers the lawyer and the procedure, though the notaire disbursements of a non-judicial divorce follow their own fee rules. Asking early matters, because aid must generally be in place before costs are incurred.
If the judge refuses to approve a mutual-consent agreement — because it does not sufficiently protect a spouse or a child — the spouses are not trapped: they can pursue another ground in the same proceedings under Article 247, or appeal within the one-month limit. If the notaire refuses to register a non-judicial agreement (missing mandatory mentions, child-protection issue), the file must be redirected toward a judicial route. Each refusal should arrive with written reasons, and those reasons dictate the next step rather than ending the case.
II. Which law governs the divorce and whether the other country recognises it
Jurisdiction answers where to divorce; applicable law answers under which substantive rules; recognition answers whether the result counts across the Channel. The three questions are distinct, and British couples sometimes win on the first while losing on the second or third. The good news is that France still applies Rome III to British spouses, and England recognises most French judicial divorces under its own statute — provided the paperwork is in order.
A. The law applicable to the divorce and its financial consequences
On the applicable law, the French judge applies the Rome III Regulation, which France joined under enhanced cooperation. The Sarreguemines court recalled: “Le règlement (UE) n°1259/2010 du Conseil en date du 20 décembre 2010, dit également « ROME III », met en œuvre une coopération renforcée dans le domaine de la loi applicable au divorce et à la séparation de corps.” Rome III allows spouses to choose the applicable law — typically the law of their habitual residence or of either nationality — and, failing a choice, designates it through a cascade centred on current habitual residence. For a British couple habitually resident in France that has chosen nothing, French divorce law will therefore normally govern the dissolution itself. A choice of English law remains possible if the formal conditions are met, but it does not import English procedure: the French judge still runs a French case, and English law must then be proved as a foreign fact, usually through a legal opinion, which adds cost and delay.
Three related issues follow different conflict rules and must not be confused with the divorce itself. First, the matrimonial property regime — who owns the French house and how its value is shared — is governed by its own instruments (the Hague Convention of 1978 for older marriages, the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation 2016/1103 for recent ones where applicable), as explained in our guide to which matrimonial regime owns the house of a couple married in England and living in France. Second, maintenance between spouses and for children follows the Hague Protocol of 2007, which generally points to the creditor’s habitual residence. Third, parental responsibility follows Brussels II ter and the 1996 Hague Convention. A British couple should therefore expect French law to end the marriage while the financial detail blends French and possibly English elements — and the divorce agreement or judgment should state expressly which law governed each head of claim, because the English court reading the papers later will look for exactly that clarity.
Pensions complete the picture and are frequently the largest asset after the house. French supplementary pension rights built up during the marriage enter the liquidation of the matrimonial regime, while English pensions are dealt with by the court seised of the financial consequences under its own conflict rules. A French divorce judgment can therefore share French pension rights while leaving an English pension to be addressed by an English financial order after recognition — another reason to keep both forums in the plan from the outset rather than discovering the gap years later.
For couples in Paris and the Île-de-France, one practical point deserves mention: international family cases for the capital are concentrated before the Paris judicial court, whose family judges handle a heavy volume of cross-border files. Filing a complete dossier from the start — marriage certificate with apostille and sworn translation, proof of habitual residence (tax notices, school certificates, carte de séjour), and any choice-of-law clause — shortens the interim phase far more than any procedural shortcut. Where documents come from the United Kingdom, remember that the UK is no longer in the EU public-documents circuit: an apostille under the Hague Apostille Convention remains the standard expectation of French registries.
B. Recognition across the Channel and challenging a refusal
A French judicial divorce is, in principle, readily recognised in England. Since the end of the transition period, recognition operates under Part II of the Family Law Act 1986 rather than under EU law. Sections 45 to 52 of the Family Law Act 1986 provide that the validity of an overseas divorce obtained by means of judicial proceedings is recognised in the United Kingdom if it is effective under the law of the country where it was obtained and, at the relevant date, either party was habitually resident or domiciled there or was a national of that country. A French divorce pronounced by the family judge for a couple habitually resident in France satisfies this test as a matter of course. The Home Office guidance on overseas divorces confirms the approach for immigration purposes (GOV.UK, overseas divorces guidance), and the general route for ending a marriage in England is described by the courts service (GOV.UK, how to get a divorce). Recognition can still be refused on narrow grounds — no subsisting marriage to dissolve, reasonable steps to give notice were not taken, or recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy — but these are exceptions, not the rule.
The reverse direction — a British couple divorcing in England and asking France to recognise it — follows French domestic recognition law, since the United Kingdom is now a third State. A foreign judicial divorce is recognised in France without exequatur for the matrimonial status itself where it meets French international regularity conditions: international jurisdiction of the foreign court from the French viewpoint, no fraud, due process, and compatibility with French international public policy. Exequatur before the French courts becomes necessary where coercive enforcement on French assets is needed — seizing a French bank account, forcing the sale of the French house, registering the transfer in the land registry. British couples dividing a French property should therefore plan for a French enforcement step even after an English financial order, and keep certified, translated copies of every English order from day one.
Refusals can be challenged on both sides. In France, a judgment dismissing the divorce or refusing exequatur is appealed within one month in contentious matters under Article 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and procedural irregularities can support cassation review, as the 2020 Dijon case shows: the appeal court had wrongly declared French courts incompetent, and the Court of Cassation quashed the decision for failure to examine the European criteria. In England, a refusal of recognition can be contested by fresh application with fuller evidence of habitual residence and due process, and ultimately by appeal within the English courts. Where a British spouse remarries in England on the strength of a French non-judicial mutual-consent divorce, extra care is needed: because no judge pronounced it, recognition analysis is less mechanical, and taking advice before the new wedding avoids the nightmare of a second marriage contracted while the first is arguably undissolved in one of the two countries. Keep every decree, certificate and translation for life: remarriage, succession and pension files will ask for them years later.
Conclusion
Brexit changed the legal plumbing but did not close the French courts to British couples: habitual residence in France still gives the family judge jurisdiction under Brussels II ter regardless of British nationality, French law will usually govern the divorce itself under Rome III, and a French judicial divorce is normally recognised in England under the Family Law Act 1986. The traps are practical rather than theoretical — parallel proceedings in both countries, a non-judicial divorce whose financial terms travel badly, a property division that needs French enforcement, documents that lack an apostille or translation. Choosing the forum first, the divorce route second, and the enforcement plan third turns a cross-border divorce from a two-country gamble into an orderly sequence: a competent French court, the right ground among the four French options, a judgment that England recognises, and a French enforcement step where assets sit in France.