GB v RNB

Registration of a foreign judgment under rule 31.8 of the FPR 2010 is an administrative process, and a challenge must be brought by appeal. Recognition may be refused under Article 23 of Brussels II Revised where the judgment was given without a party having a proper opportunity to be heard. The court must assess the evidence as a whole, including documents indicating service, representation and participation in the foreign proceedings. Where the evidence shows that the party had such an opportunity, the Article 23 non-recognition grounds are not made out. Enforcement may nevertheless be stayed temporarily where related foreign proceedings could alter the registered order.

The applicant mother appealed against the recent registration in England of a Romanian order dated 20 November 2012. The order granted care of the parties’ three-and-a-half-year-old son to the respondent father pending the conclusion of proceedings in Romania. The mother relied on Article 23(c) and (d) of Brussels II Revised, asserting that she had not received the Romanian proceedings or had an opportunity to present her case. The father, assisted by his sister, produced documents suggesting service, legal representation, reports obtained for the Romanian court and an appeal brought in the mother’s name. The central issue was whether the mother had been denied a proper opportunity to be heard.

1. The appeal against registration was dismissed. Registration under rule 31.8 of the FPR 2010 is administrative. The appropriate means of challenge is an appeal, as explained in Re D (Brussels II Revised: Contact) 2008 1 FLR 516.

2. The Article 23 grounds for non-recognition are directed to preventing enforcement of a judgment made without one party having an opportunity to be heard. The mother’s initial account appeared to provide a strong basis for relying on those grounds, but the court was required to consider the material presented by both parties.

3. The father’s documents strongly suggested that the mother had been aware of the Romanian proceedings and had had every opportunity to put her case before the Romanian judges. The material included evidence of service, representation by Romanian lawyers, a Cafcass report obtained for the Romanian court, reasoned Romanian judgments following hearings at which advocates appeared for both parties, and an appeal bearing the mother’s name. The court therefore had no basis to refuse recognition under the grounds relied upon.

4. Recognition did not require immediate enforcement. A further Romanian hearing was due to consider the mother’s appeal against the decision underlying registration. It would be wrong to enforce the Romanian order before that hearing in case the Romanian court changed its decision. Enforcement was stayed until 19 April 2013, subject to any further application by the mother for a stay.

5. The court also expressed concern about the effect on the child of the parents’ conflict and urged both parents to maintain a relationship between the child and the other parent.

• High Court (Family Division): the mother appealed against the Senior District Judge’s recent registration of the Romanian order. The appeal was dismissed, but enforcement was stayed until 19 April 2013.