The High Court refused a judicial review application by a Pakistani citizen challenging the registrar’s handling of his Lithuanian divorce decree. The court found that the registrar had made a reviewable decision not to authorise the applicant’s proposed marriage, and was entitled to require further evidence before being satisfied that there was no legal impediment.
The applicant had married R.B., a Lithuanian national, in 2006. After their relationship ended, he began divorce proceedings in Lithuania. R.B.’s address was unknown, and a Lithuanian court ordered notices to be served by public announcement on the courts’ website. R.B. did not appear at a preliminary hearing, and the Lithuanian court granted the divorce on 27 December 2013.
In 2014, the applicant sought to marry J.S. in Ireland. The Civil Registration Office asked for documentation about the foreign divorce. In an August 2014 letter, the General Register Office said it was not in a position to recognise the divorce based on the information then provided, and that the marriage could not proceed until the issue was resolved. It said the matter could be reviewed if evidence showed that R.B. accepted the divorce unequivocally.
The applicant argued that EU rules generally require recognition of divorce judgments from other member states without a special procedure. He said the registrar wrongly treated substituted service as non-service and unlawfully discriminated against him. The respondent argued that the registrar was not empowered to make a definitive ruling recognising a foreign divorce and that the material supplied did not establish that the initiating documents had been served or that the notices were published.
Mr Justice Hedigan held that the registrar’s letter was both advice on how to proceed and a decision capable of judicial review. The registrar was not deciding whether the divorce was recognised for all purposes; he was considering whether the evidence satisfied the requirements relevant to the proposed marriage. Because the Lithuanian decree was given in R.B.’s absence, the court said the registrar had properly considered the EU rule on default judgments and service.
The court noted that the evidence before the registrar did not show whether R.B. lived in Lithuania when substituted service was ordered, whether the notices were actually published, or that she had been served with the initiating documents. It held that the applicant bore the responsibility of providing evidence sufficient to satisfy the registrar, who could request evidence under section 46(7) of the Civil Registration Act 2004. The court considered the evidence request and advice about seeking recognition under section 29 of the Family Law Act 1995 reasonable.
The court found no basis for the discrimination claim and said the registrar had not decided that substituted service could never be effective. It also found no need for a preliminary reference to the EU court. The judicial review application was refused.