AN IRISH man who obtained a Dutch divorce in 1994 which is not recognised here has lost an eight-year battle to prevent the Irish courts determining the level of maintenance to be paid to his Irish wife.
The five-judge Supreme Court yesterday unanimously rejected arguments by the man that the Irish courts should decline jurisdiction in relation to maintenance proceedings initiated here by his wife in 2000.
This was in circumstances where he had obtained a Dutch divorce and an ancillary Dutch court maintenance decision.
The case centred on interpretation of complex EU regulations - Brussels I, Brussels II and Brussels II bis - relating to the recognition and enforcement of judgments of EU member states. The Supreme Court rejected the man's argument that those regulations applied to the judgment of the Dutch court.
The court also said enforcement of the Dutch court's maintenance order would conflict with the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court refusing to recognise the man's Dutch divorce on grounds that he was not resident there.
It also dismissed his claim that a refusal of the Irish courts to recognise the Dutch maintenance order restricted his free movement within the EU because, he claimed, this might lead to his having to leave Ireland.
Giving the court's decision, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said many of the man's arguments were "unfounded and, in many respects, without merit".
The judge also refused the man's application to refer a number of questions to the European Court of Justice for interpretation.
He said the principal basis of the man's case was the Brussels I convention and he believed the transitional provisions of that were "clear beyond doubt or argument".
The court, as a matter of discretion, should also not make the reference to the European Court Of Justice because of the man's "propensity" to "use legal procedures" to delay matters, causing injustice to his wife who had initiated her case eight years ago, Mr Justice Fennelly continued.
While the man had agreed to pay maintenance to his wife on a provisional basis pending the outcome of the legal proceedings, he said, he had been able to resist complying with his normal obligations to provide a statement of his means.
Earlier, outlining the background, Mr Justice Fennelly said the couple married in Ireland in 1980 and had three children, all now grown up. They lived in the Netherlands for five years for work reasons but differences arose between them. The wife returned to Ireland with the children in the early 1990s to reintegrate them into the school system here.
In 1993, the wife's solicitors wrote to the husband in the Netherlands seeking maintenance and financial support. She later initiated proceedings and secured an interim maintenance order from a Dutch court. Under Dutch law, she then had four weeks to initiate divorce proceedings which would have enabled the interim maintenance order to remain enforceable but she did not do so.
In March 1994, the husband initiated divorce proceedings in the Dutch courts and he returned to Ireland in May 1994 to take up a senior position with a company and has remained here.
In September 1994, he secured a divorce decree from the Dutch court. The Dutch court's judgment included provision for maintenance for his wife but stated it had no authority to provide for custody or maintenance of the children.
The wife initiated judicial separation proceedings here in July 2000 arguing that the man's Dutch divorce was not entitled to recognition here and also seeking maintenance and custody. (The custody issues are no longer relevant as the children are grown up.)
The sole issue raised by the man in reply to his wife's case was that the Irish courts should recognise his Dutch divorce and this would prevent his wife maintaining her proceedings. The man lost that claim in the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court.
In late 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court finding that the man's Dutch divorce could not be recognised under Irish law because, at the time of the divorce, he was not domiciled in the Netherlands.
It rejected his argument that he had acquired a domicile of choice there.
In early 2004 he asked the Irish courts to decline jurisdiction in relation to his wife's proceedings. He lost in the High Court in February 2006 and then appealed to the Supreme Court.
