Summary
The proceedings were in respect of a French order, providing for a payment of maintenance for a child.
The enforcement was sought under the Maintenance Regulation.
The enforcement was granted, but it turned out that the Regulation was not adequately implemented in this country. Mr Justice Mostyn noted:
“16 I conclude, therefore, that in construing paragraph 4, subparagraphs (1) and (2), that there is a mistake in them and that the reference to Chapter IV should in fact be a reference to Chapter VII . I say this in order to reconcile subparagraphs (1) and (2) and also to give effect to the unfettered right of an applicant who elects the course of direct enforcement to have that enforcement done under Article 41 “under the same conditions as a decision given in that Member State of enforcement.” If an applicant with the benefit of a foreign order is made to go to the Magistrates' Court, then they do not enjoy the same conditions as a decision given in the Member State of enforcement, in this case England and Wales. This is because a domestic order, if made in the County Court, may be enforced in the County Court. A domestic order, if made in the High Court, may be enforced in the High Court.
17 It seems to me to be inconceivable that the Secretary of State could have intended to have imposed more restrictive measures of enforcement by virtue of the 2011 Regulations, in circumstances where Articles 17 and 41 expressly forbid that. Therefore, I have no hesitation in concluding that, contrary to the view taken by District Judge Robinson when this matter was before her on 7th March 2014, the mother here is entitled to issue her application for general enforcement in the Principal Registry.
18 The judgment that I am giving does have a slight fin de siècle quality to it, in circumstances where the present division of jurisdiction between the County Court, the High Court and the Magistrates' Court will be swept away on 22nd April of this year with the advent of the single Family Court, which was created by Schedules 10 and 11 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 . The provisions of Schedules 10 and 11 make numerous amendments to reams of primary legislation, in order to give effect to the new creation.
19 Similarly, the Family Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2013 (SI 2013 No. 3204) make numerous changes to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 , to reflect the advent of the new single Family Court. It may be that amendment to The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 has been overlooked. I agree with Ms Faggionato that it would be a truly bizarre state of affairs if, following the advent of the single Family Court, when all family work is going to be gathered under the roof of that new institution, that enforcement of an order made by a fellow EU State (if the delegated enforcement route is adopted) was done in the Magistrates' Court; that would be highly anomalous in my view.” [16-19]