Ramadani v Ramadani

Under the Maintenance Regulation, a court decision ordinarily involves adjudication or determination by the court. A foreign court’s record that a maintenance claim was withdrawn or stopped does not itself constitute such a decision. The court must examine the substance of the foreign proceedings, not merely the heading or format of the document. A court settlement requires evidence of an agreement concerning the maintenance obligation. Withdrawal of a claim, even with the other party’s recorded agreement, is insufficient without evidence of a concluded compromise or settlement. Where that preliminary issue fails, the court need not determine the consequences of recognition or enforcement.

The parties had lived for much of their married life in Slovenia. After the wife moved to England and Wales, she began divorce proceedings in Slovenia and later included a claim for spousal maintenance. At a hearing in September 2010 she withdrew that claim, and the husband agreed. The Slovenian court’s November 2011 decision recorded that the maintenance proceedings had been stopped.

The wife subsequently obtained leave to seek financial relief in England and Wales under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. In [2014] EWHC 4210 (Fam), Moylan J refused the husband’s applications to prevent the proceedings and held that Slovenia had made neither a decision nor a court settlement concerning spousal maintenance. The appeal concerned whether the Slovenian documents required recognition and prevented the English claim from proceeding.

Appeal dismissed. McFarlane LJ gave the judgment, with Black LJ and Sales LJ agreeing. The decision of Moylan J was upheld.

1. Because the preliminary issue was primarily one of law, although involving a mixed question of law and fact, and concerned jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal was required to undertake its own analysis. It nevertheless took full account of Moylan J’s expertise and carefully reasoned judgment.
2. For the purposes of Article 2(1)(i) of the Maintenance Regulation, a decision normally involves adjudication or determination by the court. The court was not confined to the layout of the Slovenian document or its prominent heading. The September 2010 record showed that the wife had decided to withdraw her claim; it did not show a decision by the court. The November 2011 wording was a recital of what had occurred, contrasting with the mandatory terms of the provisions dealing with matters actually decided. There had therefore been no decision concerning spousal maintenance.
3. Article 2(1)(ii) required the husband to establish a court settlement. The record that the wife withdrew her claim and that the husband agreed did not establish a concluded agreement or compromise concerning his maintenance obligations. There was no evidence that the withdrawal resulted from a prior settlement between the parties.
4. The husband’s case consequently failed at the first stage. It was unnecessary to decide the later questions concerning recognition, enforcement, the effect of the Slovenian proceedings in England and Wales, or the wife’s alternative argument that Part III jurisdiction could supplement an overseas outcome.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): McFarlane LJ, with Black LJ and Sales LJ agreeing, dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld Moylan J’s decision on spousal maintenance.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Moylan J refused the husband’s applications to set aside, strike out, adjourn or stay the wife’s Part III proceedings. He held that Slovenia had made no decision concerning spousal maintenance and that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The decision is reported at [2014] EWHC 4210 (Fam).