Health Service Executive v W [2013] IESC 38 (31 July 2013)

Health Service Executive v W [2013] IESC 38 (31 July 2013)

Article 15 of Council Regulation EC/2201/2003 applies to public law child care proceedings, and the High Court correctly found that L.W. had a particular connection to England and Wales through nationality and the father's habitual residence. The English courts are better placed to hear the case due to the location of evidence and witnesses, and the transfer is in the best interests of the child. No error was demonstrated in the High Court's approach or application of the law.

Citation
[2013] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Health Service Executive; First Named Defendant/appellant: M. W.; Second Named Defendant/respondent: G. L.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction in Child Care Proceedings, Transfer of Proceedings Under Brussels II Bis, Best Interests of the Child, Public Law Child Protection, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law European Union Law Jurisdiction in Child Care Proceedings Transfer of Proceedings Under Brussels II Bis Best Interests of the Child Public Law Child Protection Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Service Executive

Plaintiff/respondent

M. W.

First Named Defendant/appellant

G. L.

Second Named Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 15 of Council Regulation EC/2201/2003 (Brussels II bis) apply to public law child care proceedings?
  2. 2 Was the High Court correct in finding that the courts of England and Wales are better placed to hear the case concerning L.W.?
  3. 3 Is the transfer of jurisdiction in the best interests of the child?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 15 of Council Regulation EC/2201/2003 applies to public law child care proceedings, and the High Court correctly found that L.W. had a particular connection to England and Wales through nationality and the father's habitual residence. The English courts are better placed to hear the case due to the location of evidence and witnesses, and the transfer is in the best interests of the child. No error was demonstrated in the High Court's approach or application of the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Request to the High Court of England and Wales to assume jurisdiction within six weeks concerning the placing of L.W. into public care.
  • Health Service Executive permitted to introduce a request before the Courts of England and Wales to assume jurisdiction.