G v K

G v K

The French Court of Appeal in Réunion had jurisdiction under Brussels IIa as the court first seised, and the principle of perpetuatio fori applied until the French appellate process concluded. The grounds for non-recognition under Art 23(a) (public policy) and Art 23(b) (child's right to be heard) were not made out, as the French court considered welfare and the child's age did not require direct participation. No material change of circumstances justified a conflicting welfare order. The French order must be recognised and enforced.

Parties
Applicant: G; Respondent: K
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Law (child Residence, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Order) / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal Against Registration of Foreign Order and Applications for Welfare and Enforcement Orders
Outcome
Mother's appeal against registration dismissed; French order to be enforced; welfare jurisdiction not exercised by English court.
Legal Topics
Child Residence, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Iia, Habitual Residence, Prorogation of Jurisdiction, Public Policy Exception, Child's Right to Be Heard
Family Law Private International Law Child Residence Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Under Brussels Iia Habitual Residence Prorogation of Jurisdiction Public Policy Exception +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G

Applicant

K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law (child Residence, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Order) / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal Against Registration of Foreign Order and Applications for Welfare and Enforcement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the French Court of Appeal in Réunion had jurisdiction to make the order of 21 October 2020 regarding A's residence
  2. 2 Whether the English court should recognise and enforce the French order under Brussels IIa
  3. 3 Whether recognition/enforcement would be manifestly contrary to public policy or violate fundamental procedural principles (e.g., child's right to be heard)

Ratio Decidendi

The French Court of Appeal in Réunion had jurisdiction under Brussels IIa as the court first seised, and the principle of perpetuatio fori applied until the French appellate process concluded. The grounds for non-recognition under Art 23(a) (public policy) and Art 23(b) (child's right to be heard) were not made out, as the French court considered welfare and the child's age did not require direct participation. No material change of circumstances justified a conflicting welfare order. The French order must be recognised and enforced.

Court Disposition

Mother's appeal against registration dismissed; French order to be enforced; welfare jurisdiction not exercised by English court.

Orders

  • Mother to return A to Réunion in accordance with the French Court of Appeal order dated 21 October 2020
  • Parties to agree 'soft landing' provisions for A's transition