The Supreme Court has dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking to prevent Irish courts from hearing his estranged wife’s claims for judicial separation, divorce and related financial orders. It also refused his request to refer questions of European Community law to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 29 July 2008, concerned proceedings that had not yet reached a hearing on their substance. The Court affirmed the High Court’s refusal to decline jurisdiction over the wife’s claims. It did not decide those claims or make the requested financial orders.
The couple, both Irish citizens, married in Dublin in 1980 and lived in the Netherlands with their children from about 1987 to 1992. The husband obtained a Dutch divorce in September 1994, with a maintenance provision for the wife. In earlier proceedings, the High Court and Supreme Court rejected his bid to have that divorce recognised in Ireland. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision that it was not entitled to recognition remained final, the Court said.
The wife began Irish proceedings in July 2000, seeking judicial separation or, alternatively, divorce, along with ancillary orders. After the earlier recognition dispute ended, the husband brought a new motion arguing that European rules on jurisdiction and recognition meant the Irish courts should not hear the related claims. The High Court rejected that application in February 2006.
The Supreme Court held that the 1994 Dutch judgment did not qualify for recognition under the Brussels Convention in a way that would require the Irish courts to stand aside. It said the Convention left national courts able to apply their own private international law rules on marital status, and the Dutch maintenance provision was linked to a divorce that Ireland had not recognised. The Court also ruled that the later Brussels I, Brussels II and Brussels II bis regulations did not apply to the 1994 judgment, because their relevant provisions did not operate retroactively and the judgment predated their effective dates.
The husband’s arguments based on European treaty provisions and free movement did not change the result, the Court said. It described the free-movement argument as theoretical and noted that the earlier decision on recognition was final. The Court also declined a preliminary reference, concluding that a reference was not required and would further delay the wife’s access to a hearing. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.
The judgment recorded that the wife had agreed to interim maintenance while the proceedings were held in abeyance. It also noted that she had not filed a statement of means required by an earlier High Court order. The substantive separation, divorce and ancillary claims were still awaiting determination.