Family Law Hub

Council Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I)

International regs, published: 22/12/2001


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
  • Application for financial provision in a very long marriage case. Judgment, 19/10/2015, free
  • Judgment, 24/05/2007, free
  • Father's appeal against a UK decision that allowed an appeal by the child's mother against the recognition and enforcement of an order made by the Romanian Court of Appeal in Bucharest. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/01/2016, 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
  • 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
  • A ToLATA application with an international dimension and jurisdiction issues. Mr Justice Bodey found (after considerable detailed consideration) that the English court was the court first seised and that no discretion arose to stay the ToLATA proceedings in favour of any proceedings in the competing jurisdiction of Poland. Further, he had made clear that even if he had a discretion to stay, he would not exercise it in favour of a jurisdiction which had made clear that the question of property in London was not an issue with which it regarded itself as dealing. Judgment, 04/02/2016, free
  • The court ruled that it did have jurisdiction in relation to proceedings issued by the mother under the inherent jurisdiction concerning two children where the mother alleged that the father had removed their passports thus preventing them from returning to the UK from the UAE. Judgment, 16/08/2017, free
  • 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
  • Case note, 19/04/2010, 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
  • In the words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson, this is "another example of the painful legal confusion that can arise when children are born as a result of unregulated artificial conception". The present applications arose from a same-sex relationship between Ms L and Ms C. Ms C gave birth to a child after artificial insemination and soon afterwards took the child to Ireland after their relationship broke down. Ms L had not seen the child since and was applying for a residence and contact order, and for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent'. It was held first that the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. Secondly, the court made a declaration that, at the date of the child's removal from England, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between the child and Ms L Judgment, 06/05/2014, free
  • Application by wife that decrees nisi and absolute issued in Malaya in favour of the respondent husband should not be recognised in England and Wales. Application allowed primarily because the wife was not given reasonable notice of the Malaysian proceedings or a reasonable opportunity to participate in them. Judgment, 05/06/2015, free
  • Application by H for costs orders to be set aside after a European Enforcement Order Certificate in relation to maintenance was rescinded by the German notary. Judgment, 28/02/2014, free
  • Case note, 23/06/2010, members only
  • 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
  • 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
  • Substantive judgment in long-running Sch1 Children Act proceedings involving parties currently living or in prison in Australia. Judgment, 09/07/2014, free
  • Judgment, 01/02/2012, free
  • Case note, 21/12/2010, members only
  • The husband wished to litigate matrimonial matters arising from the impending dissolution of his marriage in England; the wife wished to litigate in Malaysia. The judge ruled in favour of the husband. The wife appealed against an order which dismissed her application for (i) a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union; (ii) dismissal of the husband's petition; alternatively, (iii) a stay of the husband's petition. She also appealed the order that she shall make a payment of £100,000 on account of costs. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • The court ruled that even though the wife had served the divorce petition on the husband 4 months and one day after issue, the UK court was the court first seised. Judgment, 22/10/2016, free
  • The wife's divorce petition was issued in England in October 2015. An attempt to serve the petition on the husband was made in February 2016 in Germany where he was living at the time, but this failed because of insufficient address details being given by the wife. In the meantime, the husband had commenced divorce proceedings in Germany in January 2016. The husband was appealing against a ruling that the English court was first seised on the grounds that the wife had failed to take the required steps to serve the petition. The appeal was dismissed, the court saying that Rule 7.8 FPR simply requires the petitioner to serve the petition. No particular step is stipulated as having to take place "immediately" or by a certain date. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • Judgment, 14/02/2011, 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: 22/12/2001


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.


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