- Enforcement in non-EU Member States (C (A Child))
- What are the practical implications of this case, in particular as to the EU Maintenance Regulation?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Reflexive effect
- Maintenance creditor
- Litigation and costs
Family analysis: The court held that the spirit of the EU Maintenance Regulation does not apply to proceedings issued in a non-EU Member State (in this case Monaco), ie the so-called ‘reflexive effect’. The court also discussed whether the ‘maintenance creditor’ for the purposes of an application under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) is the parent seeking the payment or only the child on whose behalf payment is sought, and expressed a view in favour of the former. The judgment also contains a helpful summary of the law on habitual residence (for both adults and children) with an application of the law to the facts of the case. The case may perhaps however be best remembered for the comments at the end regarding the litigation and costs incurred by the parties, along with the stark reminder to all practitioners of the importance of complying with the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Directions. Michael Allum, partner at The International Family Law Group LLP, considers the implications of the decision.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial