T. -v- L. [2008] IESC 48 (29 July 2008)

T. -v- L. [2008] IESC 48 (29 July 2008)

The Dutch divorce and maintenance order of 1994 is not entitled to recognition in Ireland because the appellant had not acquired a Dutch domicile of choice at the relevant time, and under Irish law and the Brussels Convention, recognition is precluded. The Brussels I and II Regulations do not apply retroactively to the Dutch judgment. The Irish courts are not required to decline jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for ancillary relief. There is no breach of EU free movement rights.

Citation
[2008] IESC 48
Parties
Applicant/respondent: D. T.; Respondent/appellant: F. L.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Recognition of Foreign Divorces, Jurisdiction of Courts, Maintenance Orders, Brussels Convention, Brussels I Regulation, Brussels II Regulation, Domicile, Free Movement of Persons
Family Law Private International Law European Union Law Recognition of Foreign Divorces Jurisdiction of Courts Maintenance Orders Brussels Convention Brussels I Regulation +3 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. T.

Applicant/respondent

F. L.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Dutch divorce and maintenance order of 1994 is entitled to recognition in Ireland under Irish law and/or EU law instruments (Brussels Convention, Brussels I, Brussels II, Brussels II bis)
  2. 2 Whether the Irish courts should decline jurisdiction over ancillary reliefs sought by the respondent in light of the Dutch judgment
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to recognise the Dutch judgment infringes EU free movement rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Dutch divorce and maintenance order of 1994 is not entitled to recognition in Ireland because the appellant had not acquired a Dutch domicile of choice at the relevant time, and under Irish law and the Brussels Convention, recognition is precluded. The Brussels I and II Regulations do not apply retroactively to the Dutch judgment. The Irish courts are not required to decline jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for ancillary relief. There is no breach of EU free movement rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The High Court order refusing to decline jurisdiction is affirmed.