MD v AA & Anor

MD v AA & Anor

Recognition and registration of the Romanian custody order is refused because the child was not given an opportunity to be heard in violation of fundamental procedural principles (Article 23(b)), and the mother was not properly served or given an opportunity to be heard (Article 23(c) and (d)). Procedural defects in the initial English registration also require the order to be set aside. The public policy ground (Article 23(a)) is not engaged.

Parties
Applicant: MD; First Respondent: AA; Second Respondent (child, by Guardian): DD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law, International Child Custody) / Judgment on Appeal Against Recognition and Registration of Foreign Custody Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; recognition and registration of the Romanian custody order refused.
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Parental Responsibility, Child's Right to Be Heard, Service of Process, Procedural Fairness, Public Policy Exception
Family Law Private International Law Child Law Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Parental Responsibility Child's Right to Be Heard Service of Process Procedural Fairness +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD

Applicant

AA

First Respondent

DD

Second Respondent (child, by Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law, International Child Custody) / Judgment on Appeal Against Recognition and Registration of Foreign Custody Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Romanian custody order should be recognised and registered for enforcement in England under BIIR (Brussels II Revised)
  2. 2 Whether the child was given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the mother was properly served and given an opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

Recognition and registration of the Romanian custody order is refused because the child was not given an opportunity to be heard in violation of fundamental procedural principles (Article 23(b)), and the mother was not properly served or given an opportunity to be heard (Article 23(c) and (d)). Procedural defects in the initial English registration also require the order to be set aside. The public policy ground (Article 23(a)) is not engaged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; recognition and registration of the Romanian custody order refused.

Orders

  • Recognition and registration of the Bucharest Court of Appeal order of 27 November 2013 is refused under Article 23(b), (c), and (d) of BIIR.
  • The registration order of 7 February 2014 is quashed for fundamental procedural defects.