International enforcement

The international enforcement of financial orders is not a common feature of everyday practice. As a result, reported cases are few. However, there are numerous conventions, regulations, statutes and statutory instruments, making this a highly complex area. With some jurisdictions there is more than one statutory route to enforcing an order; in others, none; or there may even be variations in relation to different parts of a particular state.

Consideration should be given to the impact of the exit of the UK from the EU (Brexit). 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. At that time (referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’), key transitional arrangements came to an end and significant changes took effect across the UK’s legal regime. This has implications for practitioners considering issues of enforcement. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit.

See also Practice Notes: Jurisdiction in overseas cases including cases with UK-EU connections issued after IP completion day and Jurisdiction in cases with EU connections issued before IP completion day,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Cafcass guidance on conflicting assessments in public law cases

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published new guidance for local authorities and Cafcass for cases where the views of the children’s guardian (and therefore their independent advice to the court) and the assessment of a local authority social worker and/or the independent reviewing officer fundamentally differ on the final care plan or interim arrangements for a child. The guidance applies to all children in care and supervision order applications under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and deprivation of liberty applications. The guidance sets out the process that should be followed at any point during proceedings where a divergence arises and should be completed before final recommendations are submitted to court. The guidance requires that a pre-final hearing meeting be convened to identify and document the points of difference for the court. It includes suggestions for structuring the pre-final hearing meeting, a template agenda and a template for sharing the agreed rationale with the court. The guidance is not intended to be used to agree a joint position, rather to make sure that recommendations to court include a clear explanation about why the children’s guardian, the local authority social worker and/or the independent reviewing officer have reached fundamentally different positions. The explanation must set out what the points of difference are so that the judge in the case can better understand these. It remains for the court to decide what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents