MD v CT (Rev 1)

MD v CT (Rev 1)

The mother's appeal succeeds because, although she was technically served under French law, she was not served in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable her to arrange for her defence, as required by Article 23(c) B2R. The father's conduct in refusing to provide the application documents to the mother's solicitor was more culpable than the mother's failure to seek them. The public policy ground was not made out.

Parties
Applicant: MD; Respondent/appellant: CT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Parental Responsibility Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Parental Responsibility, Service of Process, Public Policy Exception, Brussels II Revised Regulation, Hague Convention on Child Abduction
Family Law Private International Law Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Parental Responsibility Service of Process Public Policy Exception Brussels II Revised Regulation Hague Convention on Child Abduction

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD

Applicant

CT

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Parental Responsibility Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the French judgment should be recognised and enforced in England under Article 23 of Brussels II Revised Regulation (B2R)
  2. 2 Whether the mother was properly served in sufficient time and manner to arrange her defence under Article 23(c) B2R
  3. 3 Whether recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy taking into account the best interests of the child under Article 23(a) B2R

Ratio Decidendi

The mother's appeal succeeds because, although she was technically served under French law, she was not served in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable her to arrange for her defence, as required by Article 23(c) B2R. The father's conduct in refusing to provide the application documents to the mother's solicitor was more culpable than the mother's failure to seek them. The public policy ground was not made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Registration and enforcement of the French judgment set aside
  • Proceed to consider the linked Hague Convention proceedings