M.H. -v- M.H. [2017] IECA 18 (24 January 2017)

M.H. -v- M.H. [2017] IECA 18 (24 January 2017)

The English court was first seised because the divorce petition was lodged with the English Family Court Office prior to the Irish special summons being lodged with the High Court, as interpreted under Article 16(1)(a) of Regulation 2201/2003, which fixes seising at the time of lodgement, not commencement under national law.

Citation
[2017] IECA 18
Parties
Applicant/appellant: M. H.; Respondent: M. H.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Divorce, Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens, Council Regulation (ec) No 2201/2003, Seising of a Court
Family Law Private International Law Judicial Separation Divorce Jurisdiction Lis Pendens Council Regulation (ec) No 2201/2003 Seising of a Court

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. H.

Applicant/appellant

M. H.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which court was first seised under Article 16 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003?
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'lodged with the court' in Article 16.1(a) of Regulation 2201/2003

Ratio Decidendi

The English court was first seised because the divorce petition was lodged with the English Family Court Office prior to the Irish special summons being lodged with the High Court, as interpreted under Article 16(1)(a) of Regulation 2201/2003, which fixes seising at the time of lodgement, not commencement under national law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stay of Irish proceedings until jurisdiction of English court is determined pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation 2201/2003