The High Court has ruled that Irish courts have jurisdiction over an application for maintenance for a dependent child, despite the child’s habitual residence in England and parallel proceedings there. It held that the EU Maintenance Regulation applied and that the Irish court could not decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds.
The decision, delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson on 10 December 2024, concerned a preliminary jurisdiction motion brought by B. G. against M. G. The parties were not married and have one young child, whose health issues were described as challenging. The judgment does not determine the disputed ordinary residence of M. G. or the nature of the parties’ relationship.
M. G. seeks financial relief, including child maintenance, in proceedings issued in Ireland. B. G. argued that the Maintenance Regulation no longer governed jurisdiction between an EU member state and England, which became a third state after Brexit. He submitted that England was the more appropriate forum because the child lives there, child arrangements were being dealt with there, and related issues should be heard together.
M. G. argued that the Regulation applied and gave the Irish courts jurisdiction because B. G. is habitually resident in Ireland. She also disputed accepting the English courts’ jurisdiction over financial relief. B. G. had entered an unconditional appearance in the Irish proceedings, although he raised jurisdiction at an early stage. He had also undertaken to stay the English proceedings pending the Irish jurisdiction decision.
Justice Jackson found that the Regulation’s jurisdiction rules applied where a maintenance claim is brought in a member state, even if the other party or parallel proceedings are connected with a third state. She held that Ireland had jurisdiction under Article 3(a), based on B. G.’s habitual residence, and said Article 5 also supported jurisdiction through his appearance. The Irish proceedings had been commenced before the English proceedings.
The court rejected the argument that forum non conveniens could be used to set aside jurisdiction under the Regulation. It added that, even if it had to consider which forum was more convenient, it would not conclude that England was the more suitable forum. The child’s living costs in England were relevant, but the court also considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including assets and income connected to Ireland.
The ruling determines jurisdiction over the child maintenance claim; it does not decide the amount of maintenance or the merits of the claim. Parental responsibility matters were accepted as falling within the jurisdiction of the English courts because the child is habitually resident there. Other issues, including a preliminary question about ordinary residence under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, remain for later determination. The court said it would proceed to hear that preliminary issue and the application for interim maintenance on an assigned date, with costs submissions also to be heard.