Settling cross-border family disputes: France, England, Hong Kong

On October 16, 2026, Sarah-Jane Tasteyre (Leeds, Hong Kong) and I led a “Déjeuner du DIP” for the Institut du droit de la famille et du patrimoine (IDFP), a French institute for family and estate law, on the tools for reaching an out-of-court settlement (amiable) in international family cases. Here are the key points, and the slides.

One case, three jurisdictions

The webinar followed a single case study: a French-English family living in Hong Kong as expatriates, property in Paris, London and Hong Kong, and a disagreement over where the children should live. Courts in three jurisdictions could potentially hear the case.

We compared the jurisdiction rules in France, England and Hong Kong, showed why racing to court first is not always the best strategy, presented international collaborative practice and international family mediation, then the tools that secure a settlement: withdrawals of proceedings, mirror orders, court approval (homologation) and recognition of foreign judgments (exequatur).

Rethinking the reflex to race to court

In the case study, courts in three jurisdictions could be seised, and each spouse had an interest in going to their own. Filing first remains a sound precaution when an EU regulation requires the court seised second to decline jurisdiction. But this reflex should not turn into “judicial nationalism”: it calls for a genuine comparison of both laws and both procedures, as part of an overall strategic analysis.

With common law countries, a court may keep jurisdiction even when seised second, if it considers itself the most appropriate forum. The race to court then becomes a race to judgment, and a judgment that will not be recognized where it must be enforced is a paper victory. Add the cost of parallel proceedings in several countries and the escalation of the conflict.

When filing is still needed to secure a forum, the summons (assignation) should be drafted so as not to offend, and sent with a letter that opens negotiations: the hearing date is far off, and any agreement can be submitted for court approval before the judge rules.

International family mediation: the mediator as conductor

International family mediation works better when lawyers attend the sessions with their clients. Without them, lawyers only hear a subjective account of what was said and cannot advise their client to drop the proceedings pending in each country. The Hague Conference’s Guide to Good Practice on mediation stresses the parties’ access to legal advice and the mediator’s specific training.

The mediator then acts as the conductor of the professionals involved: lawyers in each country, financial experts, psychologists, real estate specialists. Together they build a common framework where the diversity of legal systems tends to create confusion and multiply the people involved.

Six key takeaways

1. 1Propose settlement earlyThe earlier it is raised, the more options remain open. Do not wait for litigation to escalate.
2. 2Compare the three systemsBrussels II ter, post-Brexit English law, Hong Kong law: know what would happen in each country, with help from local counsel.
3. 3Match the tool to the conflictCollaborative practice when both sides act in good faith; international family mediation when tension is high or children are involved.
4. 4Consider international family mediationThe mediator coordinates the professionals involved, like a conductor.
5. 5Secure the settlement in each countryCheck how each term will apply abroad and obtain the local orders or deeds required, from the start of the case.
6. 6Work with trained colleaguesA network of English and Hong Kong lawyers trained in international collaborative practice is a major asset.

Training excerpts

General information. This account of a talk reflects only my personal opinion and is not legal advice. The cases mentioned are fictional, or inspired by real cases, modified and anonymized.