Summary
The court of first instance rejected the application for the augmentation of the maintenance obligation. It stated that it had no jurisdiction under the Maintenance Regulation because both the creditor and the defendant had their habitual residence in the United Kingdom. The appellate court disagreed with the above-mentioned argumentation and stated that the court of first instance had violated the provisions of the Maintenance Regulation (Article 5). The court of second instance emphasised that the defendant had no possibility to enter an appearance, and the jurisdiction could not have been established on the basis of Article 5 of the Maintenance Regulation, because the defendant was not served with the document, which instituted the proceedings. It follows that the rejection of the application, because of no jurisdiction, was premature. The appellate emphasised that the court of first instance, before declaring that it had no jurisdiction, should have served the defendant with the document which instituted the proceedings.