K v S (appeal against registration of an order of a member state) (Rev 1) [2019] EWFC B43 (15 August 2019)

K v S (appeal against registration of an order of a member state) (Rev 1) [2019] EWFC B43 (15 August 2019)

By 2012, the parties and child were habitually resident in England, giving exclusive jurisdiction over child maintenance to the English CMS. The CMS exercised this jurisdiction and assessed maintenance liability, superseding the Polish order. Registration and enforcement of the Polish order in England would be contrary to the applicable law and public policy, especially as the Polish courts had declined jurisdiction and the CMS had already determined maintenance obligations.

Citation
[2019] EWFC B43
Parties
Appellant: K; Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Determination of Appeal Against Registration of Foreign Maintenance Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Maintenance Orders, Jurisdiction in Child Maintenance Cases, Public Policy Exception, Habitual Residence, EU Maintenance Regulation
Family Law Private International Law Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Maintenance Orders Jurisdiction in Child Maintenance Cases Public Policy Exception Habitual Residence EU Maintenance Regulation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Appellant

S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Determination of Appeal Against Registration of Foreign Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Polish maintenance order should be registered and enforced in England and Wales
  2. 2 Whether the English Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has exclusive jurisdiction over child maintenance given the parties' habitual residence
  3. 3 Whether recognition of the Polish order would be manifestly contrary to public policy

Ratio Decidendi

By 2012, the parties and child were habitually resident in England, giving exclusive jurisdiction over child maintenance to the English CMS. The CMS exercised this jurisdiction and assessed maintenance liability, superseding the Polish order. Registration and enforcement of the Polish order in England would be contrary to the applicable law and public policy, especially as the Polish courts had declined jurisdiction and the CMS had already determined maintenance obligations.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Registration of the Polish maintenance order is refused.