Family Law Hub

Maintenance Regulation (Council Regulation No 4/2009)

International regs, published: 31/12/2009

Topics

Items referring to this

  • Application by husband to set aside grant of leave for the wife to apply for financial remedies in the English courts while there are ongoing protracted proceedings in Slovenia (where they married). Application failed. Judgment, 21/01/2015, free
  • Judgment, 22/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 23/01/2013, free
  • The ex-wife's application for enforcement of the provisions of an order relating to maintenance was stayed according to Art 12 of the Maintenance Regulation until the Italian court had determined the question of its jurisdiction . Judgment, 10/05/2017, free
  • Appeal concerning enforcement of Romanian custody order under BIIR. Struck out as the Court decided on a preliminary issue that it has no jurisdiction to hear it. Judgment, 22/06/2016, free
  • The father was seeking a child arrangements order, a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order. He subsequently issued an application for a return order. The purpose of this hearing was to determine a preliminary issue concerning the jurisdiction of the English court to adjudicate upon the father's applications, that issue hinging on the court's determination of whether the child was habitually resident in England. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • W and H were both Italian nationals but habitually resident in the UK. The divorce petition was lodged in Italy by H before the W lodged hers in the UK, and the issue before this court was whether, by reason of the Maintenance Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, the English courts were precluded from proceeding with the wife's Schedule 1 application because of the Italian proceedings, specifically whether the "Lis pendens" provisions in Article 12 were engaged. Judgment, 24/09/2013, free
  • Judgment in a case where a mother was seeking enforcement of a child maintenance order made in France in the PRFD under Rule 33.3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which permits an application to be made for an order for such method of enforcement as the court may consider appropriate. Judgment, 10/04/2014, free
  • Judgment in a case where a mother was seeking enforcement of a child maintenance order made in France Case note, 04/06/2014, members only
  • Training note, 01/07/2012, members only
  • In a factually complicated case, in which the mother (“M”) effectively only gave written submissions, Mostyn J concluded that while it would lead to inconsistent judgments in England and Poland, he should order the children be returned here Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Timothy Scott QC rounds up all the latest developments in international family law touching on case law and policy developments such as how the Maintenance Regulation is operating 2 years on, an update on BIIR cases and staying proceedings and Hemain injunctions. Webcast, 09/10/2013, members only
  • Training notes to accompany Timothy Scott QC's recorded webinar on International Family Law Training note, 09/10/2013, members only
  • A foundation course for practitioners seeking to understand the principles and key regulations of European family law Training note, 01/05/2012, members only
  • Judgment determining an application made by a former wife under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and an application by her for the enforcement, by way of a charging order, of a capitalised maintenance order made by a French Court. Judgment, 02/02/2017, free
  • Wife's appeal against a stay of proceedings brought by her in England on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum to hear the proceedings (forum non conveniens). Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 20/10/2013, free
  • Justice Committee publishes report on the implications of Brexit for lega services News, 22/03/2017, free
  • German mother was trying to enforce a German child maintenance order against the English father by applying directly to the Family Court. Mrs Justice Roberts referred, by means of questions, the preliminary issue, which was whether an application for enforcement of this type of maintenance order can be issued directly in the Family Court or whether, in all cases, the application must first be lodged with the Lord Chancellor for onward transmission to the Family Court through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Unit ("REMO"), to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Judgment, 21/01/2016, free
  • Application for declaratory relief where the applicant was arguing that a final consent order was substitution for and supersession of an interim order, including any arrears that may have arisen under it. Judgment, 08/12/2015, free
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 20/10/2010, free
  • Appeal requiring the court to consider, apparently for the first time, the jurisdiction of a court in England and Wales to entertain an application for spousal maintenance in the context of The Maintenance Regulation following previous proceedings in another EU member state. Judgment, 13/11/2015, free
  • Appeal against an order requiring the husband to pay the wife £2,500 per month by way of interim periodical payments until further order and to pay directly to her solicitors, £3,000 per month by way of a legal fees allowance order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 18/05/2018, free

Published: 31/12/2009

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item