M. (P.) v. Devins [2007] IEHC 380 (2 July 2007)

M. (P.) v. Devins [2007] IEHC 380 (2 July 2007)

The District Court's determination of habitual residence and jurisdiction under Brussels II bis was a mixed question of fact and law, properly within its remit. There was no extreme error of law or jurisdictional defect justifying judicial review. The application was also not made in a timely fashion. Certainty of jurisdiction is achieved by the court first seized under Brussels II bis, and judicial review cannot undermine this scheme.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 380
Parties
Applicant: P. M.; Respondent: Judge Mary Devins; Notice Party: A. McA.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Bis, Guardianship, Custody, Judicial Review, Timeliness of Application
Family Law Private International Law Child Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Bis Guardianship Custody Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. M.

Applicant

Judge Mary Devins

Respondent

A. McA.

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Irish District Court had jurisdiction under Brussels II bis Regulation to make orders regarding guardianship and custody of children who had moved to Scotland with their mother prior to the initiation of proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the orders of the District Court should be quashed for want of jurisdiction or error of law.
  3. 3 Whether the application for judicial review was made in a timely fashion.

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court's determination of habitual residence and jurisdiction under Brussels II bis was a mixed question of fact and law, properly within its remit. There was no extreme error of law or jurisdictional defect justifying judicial review. The application was also not made in a timely fashion. Certainty of jurisdiction is achieved by the court first seized under Brussels II bis, and judicial review cannot undermine this scheme.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Refusal of all reliefs sought by the applicant
  • No quashing of District Court orders