R v R

R v R

The making of a court order requiring a sanctioned individual to pay interim maintenance into a Russian bank account does not constitute a circumvention of EU sanctions under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. The Regulation distinguishes between making and enforcing court orders, and does not prohibit the making of such orders. The payment route chosen (Russia rather than the UK) does not, in itself, circumvent the sanctions, as the Regulation does not seek to prohibit or regulate such payments outside its territorial scope. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: R (Husband); Respondent: R (Wife)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Maintenance, Jurisdiction of Family Courts, EU Sanctions, Enforcement of Court Orders, Interpretation of EU Regulations
Family Law Sanctions Law European Union Law Interim Maintenance Jurisdiction of Family Courts EU Sanctions Enforcement of Court Orders Interpretation of EU Regulations

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (Husband)

Appellant

R (Wife)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a UK court order requiring a sanctioned individual to pay interim maintenance into a Russian bank account circumvents EU sanctions legislation
  2. 2 Whether the making of such a court order constitutes a prohibited circumvention under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014

Ratio Decidendi

The making of a court order requiring a sanctioned individual to pay interim maintenance into a Russian bank account does not constitute a circumvention of EU sanctions under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. The Regulation distinguishes between making and enforcing court orders, and does not prohibit the making of such orders. The payment route chosen (Russia rather than the UK) does not, in itself, circumvent the sanctions, as the Regulation does not seek to prohibit or regulate such payments outside its territorial scope. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The order of Moor J dated 17 October 2014 stands.