PIL instrument(s)
Brussels IIa
Case number and/or case name
S-M v R [2008] EWHC 1932 (Fam)
Details of the court
England and Wales, First Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels IIa
Article 8
Paragraph 1
Article 10
Paragraph a
Paragraph b SubParagraph i
Paragraph b SubParagraph ii
Paragraph b SubParagraph iii
Paragraph b SubParagraph iv
Article 12
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph c
Article 15
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph c
Article 48
Paragraph 1
Date of the judgement
01 April 2008
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
None
Summary
The English legal proceedings were seeking the recognition and enforcement of a Spanish contact order. The proceedings were first commenced by the father on 8th December 2004. A registration order was made by Munby J. The contract had continued since then. On 31st October 2007, the father commenced further enforcement proceedings, seeking enforcement of Mr Justice Munby’s order. It should be noted that the Spanish court had jurisdiction under Article 12 of Brussels IIa. And, it was held that the Spanish court continued to have jurisdiction on this basis. It was considered whether the English court should make a request to the Spanish court for transfer of the proceedings under Article 15 of Brussels IIa. In the meantime, the father’s application to enforce the order was stayed. In this context, Mr Jonathan Baker QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, held: “78 So far as the enforcement application is concerned, both parties are agreed that, if the court concludes that the right course is to seek transfer of the jurisdiction under Article 15, the appropriate order is to adjourn the application to enforce for about four months with liberty to apply. The date of 7th July has been identified as convenient for the parties. By that stage, it is hoped that the issue of any transfer by the Spanish court under Article 15 will have been resolved. If jurisdiction has been transferred, no doubt proceedings under s.8 of the Children Act will have been started, and that hearing can be used as appropriate in those proceedings. 79 If, however, jurisdiction has not been transferred, either because the Spanish court has refused the application or because no decision has yet been reached, the father can renew his application to enforce the order during the school summer holidays and beyond.” [78-79]

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team