The Court of Appeal has dismissed M. D’s appeal and refused him leave to seek judicial review of a Circuit Court decision that ended his application for declarations about his marital status and a divorce order made in 2006.
In a judgment delivered on 3 May 2022, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said the Circuit Court was entitled to refuse M. D’s request for judgment in default of appearance and to strike out his proceedings. The other party, E.H.D., was the intended respondent. The Court of Appeal’s decision concerned whether M. D had an arguable basis to challenge the Circuit Court’s handling of the case; it did not make fresh declarations about the parties’ marital status.
M. D had sought declarations under section 29 of the Family Law Act 1995 that the marriage subsisted on 30 December 2019 and that the 2006 divorce decree was not entitled to recognition in Ireland. E.H.D. had not entered an appearance, and M. D brought a motion for judgment in default. At the hearing in Ennis on 21 July 2020, a solicitor for E.H.D. was present. The Circuit Court judge refused the application and struck out the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal said the divorce decree had been made by the Circuit Court on 28 February 2006 and remained binding. M. D had appealed it but did not pursue that appeal to a hearing or decision. A High Court order made on appeal in 2007 dealt with financial, property and custody matters, but did not set aside or vary the divorce decree.
M. D had also sought judicial review in 2012 to challenge the 2006 orders. The High Court refused an extension of time, and the Court of Appeal noted that the refusal did not appear to have been appealed. Collins J said the later section 29 case was an impermissible attempt to challenge the divorce decree indirectly. The court also said section 29 could not be used to set aside or disregard a binding domestic court order, and the requested recognition declaration did not apply to a divorce granted by an Irish court.
The judgment addressed M. D’s claims about the divorce proceedings, including service and whether the judge had been told of an appeal against an earlier order. It said the divorce proceedings had not followed the usual procedural route, but this was by agreement of the parties and the Circuit Court judge. The civil bill had been served on M. D’s solicitors, and the divorce was uncontested. The court found no substance in the arguments advanced about the decree’s alleged invalidity.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to apply for judicial review. It made no order on costs.