When family disputes cross borders, the English courts are often asked to do the impossible: protect parties and assets scattered across the globe, while respecting the sovereignty of foreign legal systems. The recent case of Collardeau v Fuchs [2025] EWFC 413 is a timely reminder of both the power and the limits of English family law in an international context.

1. The Facts: A Truly International Dispute

Alvina Collardeau and Michael Fuchs were embroiled in high net worth financial remedy proceedings. The assets included valuable US properties, and the parties themselves lived and worked internationally. When Mr Fuchs sold a US property in breach of a court order, and then opposed the enforcement of English orders in the US, Ms Collardeau brought contempt proceedings.

2. Service and Notice: Adapting to Modern Realities

One of the most practical challenges in international cases is simply getting documents to the other party. Here, the court had previously authorised service by email, recognising that personal service was unrealistic. The judgment confirms that English courts can, and will, adapt service requirements to fit the facts—provided it’s fair and the respondent is genuinely on notice.

Key lesson: The court’s focus is on fairness, not formality. If you can show your ex is aware of the proceedings, the court can waive technical defects in service—even in contempt cases.

3. Jurisdictional Overreach: Knowing Where to Draw the Line

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the case is the court’s refusal to find contempt for breaching an order that sought to prevent Mr Fuchs from opposing the “domestication” of English orders in the US. The court made clear that it cannot compel a party to surrender their rights in a foreign court, nor can it dictate the outcome of foreign proceedings.

Unique analysis: This is a subtle but important boundary. English courts can make orders to preserve assets and prevent dissipation, but they must not overstep by trying to control what happens in foreign courts. This is judicial restraint in action—a recognition that comity and respect for foreign legal systems are essential in cross-border disputes.

4. The Criminal Standard and Procedural Safeguards

Even in the heat of ultra high-net worth divorce, high-conflict litigation, the court insisted on the criminal standard of proof for contempt and scrupulous procedural fairness. The respondent’s right to remain silent, to be represented, and to have clear notice of the order were all respected.

Practical takeaway: No matter how international or complex the case, the English courts will not cut corners on fairness or due process.

5. Enforcement: The Real-World Challenge

The case also highlights the limits of English orders when it comes to enforcement abroad. Even the most robust English injunction is only as effective as the willingness of foreign courts to recognise and enforce it. Parties must be realistic: asset preservation orders may not bite if the foreign jurisdiction does not cooperate.

Recent precedent: The court’s approach here builds on MBR Acres v Maher [2022] EWHC 1123 (QB), confirming that the substantive law of contempt still requires proper notice, but not necessarily personal service, and that the court retains discretion to waive defects where justice demands.

6. Drafting Orders: A Word of Caution

For practitioners, the case is a warning against overbroad or ambiguous orders. The court will not enforce terms that go beyond its jurisdiction or that risk injustice. Orders must be clear, targeted, and realistic about what can be achieved internationally.

7. Lessons for International Families

• Be proactive: If you need to serve documents abroad, gather evidence of how the other party communicates and ask for alternative service early.

• Be realistic: Understand the limits of what English courts can achieve when assets or parties are overseas.

• Be precise: Draft orders that are enforceable and within the court’s powers—don’t overreach.

Conclusion

Collardeau v Fuchs [2025] EWFC 413 stands as a modern illustration of the English family court’s reach—and its limits—when dealing with international disputes. With Justin Warshaw KC and Joshua Viney (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) representing the claimant, and Patrick Chamberlayne KC (instructed by Harbottle & Lewis) for the defendant, the case was a masterclass in both robust advocacy and judicial restraint. The court’s careful approach to service, jurisdiction, and procedural fairness offers valuable lessons for anyone facing cross-border family litigation.

Caira answers questions and writes draft statements 24/7

Caira is available through the web on your phone, tablet or desktop. She can draft statements, review your proof of service, read uploaded files, and help you prepare sections for court forms—so you can move forward, step by step, with more confidence and less anxiety.

Our first product is called Caira. She provides answers and drafts in seconds for family, criminal, conveyancing, commercial and public law—all for just £15/month, powered by generative AI and backed by more than 10,000 legal documents. You can upload documents, screenshots, and photos for even more relevant responses.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. Always consider your own circumstances before taking action.