K.W. v M.L.M.: Irish High Court confirms no merits review and narrow grounds to resist enforcement under the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention

Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court of Ireland’s ex tempore judgment in K.W. v M.L.M. [2025] IEHC 567 (17 October 2025), delivered by Gillane J. The case concerns an appeal by the maintenance debtor (the defendant/appellant, K.W.) against an enforcement order made by the Deputy Master of the High Court on 14 July 2023. The enforcement order gave effect in Ireland to decisions of the Collection Agency of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) regarding child maintenance owed to the maintenance creditor (the plaintiff/respondent, M.L.M.) for their child born in 2013.

The legal framework is the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (the 2007 Convention). The Requested Central Authority in Ireland is the Central Authority for Maintenance Recovery Abroad within the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. The case squarely raised the limits on what an Irish court may consider when asked to recognise and enforce a foreign maintenance decision under the Convention, particularly:

What grounds are available to resist recognition and enforcement (Article 22)?
What documents must accompany such an application (Article 25)?
Whether an Irish court may revisit the merits of the foreign decision (Articles 27–28)?
Whether alleged direct payments or lack of notice can defeat enforcement (Articles 22(e) and 23(8))?

Against this background, the appellant argued he had not been properly notified of NAV’s decisions before 2020, that he had made substantial direct payments to the mother, that NAV’s income calculations were inaccurate, and that his travel costs and financial circumstances were not accounted for. He asked the Irish court to review the case on the merits and derive a “best solution.” The court rejected the appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld the Deputy Master’s enforcement order and refused the debtor’s appeal. The court found:

The Convention governs the proceedings, with Articles 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 being central.
Article 25 documentation was provided, including a statement of enforceability and a statement of proper notice; Norway has also made an Article 57 declaration confirming that NAV administrative decisions satisfy Article 19(3).
The debtor did not establish any of the narrow grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement under Article 22, particularly the notice ground in Article 22(e).
On the debtor’s own evidence and on the documentary record, he had communications with NAV (2014–2015 and 2020) and was represented by a lawyer at least in late 2013 or early 2014; the record indicated receipt of advance notice in Polish and warnings about the risks of direct payments.
The debtor’s attempt to have the Irish court revisit NAV’s assessment of maintenance and income was a prohibited merits review per Articles 27–28.
While Article 23(8) permits reliance on fulfilment of past-due payments, the evidence of direct payments was sporadic, partly untranslated, and some payments had already been credited; a period with a “nil” maintenance order further undermined the “double payment” argument for 2018–2020.

The court concluded that the appeal sought a re-litigation of the merits of NAV’s determinations, which is not permissible in Irish enforcement proceedings under the 2007 Convention. The enforcement order stands.

Detailed Analysis

1) Instruments and Provisions Applied

The court’s reasoning centred on key provisions of the 2007 Convention:

Article 20 (Bases for recognition and enforcement): Establishes internationally acceptable jurisdictional connections (e.g., connections based on habitual residence or submission) on which recognition/enforcement is predicated. While the court did not dwell on Article 20, the case proceeded on the premise that the Norwegian decisions rested on a valid jurisdictional basis.
Article 22 (Grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement): Provides limited, exhaustively enumerated grounds to refuse recognition/enforcement (public policy; procedural fraud; lis pendens; incompatibility with another decision; lack of proper notice/opportunity to be heard; violation of Article 18). The court emphasised that these are narrow and strictly applied.
Article 23(7) and (8) (Procedure for recognition/enforcement; permissible appeals):
- Article 23(7) restricts appeals to bases under Article 22, bases for recognition/enforcement under Article 20, or authenticity/integrity of Article 25 documents.
- Article 23(8) allows a respondent to rely on fulfilment of the debt, but only for payments that fell due in the past.
Article 25 (Accompanying documents): Requires a complete text of the decision, a statement of enforceability, a proper notice statement where applicable, arrears/indexation statements as needed, and information on legal aid.
Article 27 (Binding effect of findings of fact relevant to jurisdiction): The State addressed is bound by the State of origin’s findings of fact underpinning jurisdiction.
Article 28 (No review of the merits): Categorically prohibits any review of the merits by the State addressed.
Articles 18 and 19(3): Article 18 channels modification to the State of origin when the creditor remains habitually resident there; Article 19(3) defines when administrative decisions qualify for recognition (subject to judicial review and with effect equivalent to judicial decisions). Norway’s Article 57 declaration confirms its administrative decisions always meet Article 19(3).

2) Precedents and Authorities Cited

No prior Irish case law was cited. The court’s analysis was grounded directly in the text of the 2007 Convention and in the documentary record furnished through the Central Authorities. This is itself instructive: the Convention’s architecture is designed to be self-executing in practice, with the State addressed giving primacy to the documentary package transmitted and to the State of origin’s decision-making, save for the strictly confined Article 22 exceptions.

3) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded along the following lines:

Documentary compliance under Article 25 was satisfied. The file included a statement of enforceability (Article 25(1)(b)) and a proper notice statement (Article 25(1)(c)). There were also arrears/indexation materials and a “Confirmation” letter from the Norwegian collection agency establishing authority to collect and detailing calculations, with updates (including a reconciliation as of 18 July 2024).
Norwegian administrative decisions attract recognition under Articles 19(3) and 57. Norway’s Article 57 declaration obviated the need for case-by-case proof that administrative decisions meet Article 19(3). The decisions of 7 November 2014, 4 August 2017, and 9 December 2020 therefore qualify for recognition/enforcement.
The appellant did not frame his challenge within Article 23(7)’s permissible bases. The notice of motion was “somewhat bald” and did not ground the appeal squarely on Article 22, Article 20, or documentary integrity. The court highlighted that general dissatisfaction with NAV’s calculations is not a recognised basis.
No ground under Article 22 was made out.
- Public policy (ordre public): Not asserted and, in any event, no manifest incompatibility shown.
- Fraud in procedure: Not established.
- Lis pendens / inconsistent decisions: Not suggested.
- Article 22(e) (lack of proper notice/opportunity to be heard): The record undermined this claim. The Central Authority furnished a proper notice statement. NAV’s case history recorded calls from the debtor on 6 January 2014 (regarding advance notice in Polish) and on 24–25 February 2015 (including a statement resisting payment absent visitation). The debtor conceded a lawyer engaged with NAV in late 2013/early 2014. NAV repeated warnings that direct payments carried a risk of not being treated as child support. An advance notice of 17 September 2020 and the 9 December 2020 decision were also exhibited, with the latter referencing tax returns submitted by the debtor. On this evidence, the court found the debtor “must have at least been aware of the initiation of the process,” defeating an Article 22(e) challenge.
- Article 22(f) (violation of Article 18): No such violation was pleaded or evident.
No merits review is permissible (Articles 27–28). The core of the appeal—asking the Irish court to recalculate maintenance by reassessing income, credits, travel expenses, and fairness—amounted to a prohibited re-litigation of NAV’s decisions. Articles 27 and 28 bind the Irish court to the State of origin’s jurisdictional findings and bar any review of the underlying merits.
Direct payments and Article 23(8). Although Article 23(8) allows reliance on fulfilment of past-due payments, the debtor’s documentary evidence was episodic, partly untranslated, and did not rise to the level necessary to displace the arrears as calculated. The record also showed that:
- Some direct payments had already been credited by the Central Authority (see the January 2021 arrears statement).
- A period of “nil” maintenance was set from 1 February 2017; therefore, alleged payments from 2018–2020 could not amount to “double payment” against a current assessed obligation, weakening the debtor’s claim.
- NAV had repeatedly advised the debtor to stop direct payments due to the risk they would not be recognised as child support, further undercutting reliance on informal transfers.
Outcome. With Article 25 compliance satisfied and no Article 22 ground established, the appeal failed. The court upheld the enforcement order.

4) Treatment of Evidence and Procedural Notes

Language and interpretation. The court noted that the debtor’s affidavits were in English with no affidavit of translation, while the debtor is a Polish speaker. An interpreter was sworn for the appeal, and the debtor was assisted by a McKenzie Friend. The court merely “observed” the translation point; it did not affect the outcome.
Documentary weight. The Convention anticipates that the Article 25 documentary package carries significant probative value. In particular, a proper notice statement and an enforceability statement, when emanating from the competent authority in the State of origin, set a strong default that the proceedings met minimum procedural guarantees.
Debtor’s admissions. The court placed weight on the debtor’s concessions (e.g., the engagement of a lawyer in late 2013/early 2014) and on the NAV case history noting direct communications in 2014 and 2015—facts inconsistent with a claim of total lack of notice or opportunity to be heard.

5) What the Court Did Not Do—and Why

The court did not:

Conduct any fresh assessment of the debtor’s income, the reasonableness of the amounts set by NAV, or the allocation of specific payments to specific periods; nor did it weigh travel expenses or other equities as part of a merits review. Articles 27–28 prohibit that.
Enter into a modification of the underlying maintenance decision. Article 18 channels modification to the State of origin when the creditor remains habitually resident there.
Engage with public policy or procedural fraud grounds, as these were neither pleaded nor substantiated.

Impact and Implications

The judgment reinforces and clarifies several practical points for cross-border child support enforcement under the 2007 Convention in Ireland:

Strict confinement of challenges. Appeals under Article 23 must be anchored in the narrow grounds in Article 22, in Article 20 bases, or in specific documentary authenticity challenges. General dissatisfaction with the foreign authority’s calculations cannot succeed.
No merits re-litigation. Irish courts will not (and cannot) recalculate maintenance, re-evaluate income, or balance equities. Parties seeking recalculation or modification must invoke remedies in the State of origin.
Weight of Article 25 materials. Statements of enforceability and proper notice—especially from a State that has made an Article 57 declaration for administrative decisions—create a powerful presumption of regularity that is difficult to overcome.
Direct payments are risky and limited in effect. Informal payments may fail to count as child support, particularly where the creditor and the authority have warned against them. Under Article 23(8), only clear, provable fulfilment of past-due obligations can reduce arrears; voluntary or sporadic payments during a “nil” period will not establish double payment.
Language issues will not derail enforcement absent prejudice. While translation and comprehension matter, the court will look for actual prejudice or lack of notice. Evidence of communications in the debtor’s language and through counsel will defeat broad assertions of ignorance.
Procedural efficiency. The decision should encourage streamlined enforcement by the Deputy Master/High Court where the Article 25 package is in order and no specific Article 22 ground is properly pleaded and evidenced.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Central Authorities. Each State under the Convention designates a Central Authority to transmit, receive, and facilitate child support enforcement. Ireland’s Central Authority for Maintenance Recovery Abroad liaises with NAV in Norway, ensuring the necessary documents and translations are exchanged.
Administrative decisions (Articles 19(3) and 57). Some States (like Norway) determine child support administratively (through NAV). If the State declares (Article 57) that such decisions are subject to judicial review and have similar effect to court judgments, other States must treat them as qualifying “decisions” for recognition/enforcement.
Proper notice and opportunity to be heard (Article 22(e)). A debtor can prevent enforcement if he proves he lacked proper notice and an opportunity to participate or to appeal. A State-of-origin statement of proper notice—and evidence of actual communications—will usually defeat a bare assertion of ignorance.
Ordre public/public policy (Article 22(a)). An exceptionally narrow safety valve. Enforcement may be refused only where recognition would be manifestly incompatible with the State addressed’s fundamental principles. It is rarely successful.
No “merits review” (Articles 27–28). The State asked to enforce the decision must not re-try the case. It cannot second-guess how the foreign authority set maintenance, calculated income, or weighed evidence. Its function is limited to recognition/enforcement, not adjudication anew.
Fulfilment of the debt (Article 23(8)). A debtor can show that past-due amounts have already been paid, but the burden is on the debtor to produce clear proof that the specific arrears were satisfied. Discretionary or informal payments may not count unless accepted and credited by the competent authority.
Article 18 (Modification jurisdiction). If the creditor remains habitually resident in the State where the decision was made, that State retains modification jurisdiction. The State addressed cannot modify in enforcement proceedings; any recalculation must occur in the State of origin.

Conclusion

K.W. v M.L.M. cements a clear message for cross-border child maintenance enforcement in Ireland under the 2007 Hague Convention: enforcement challenges are tightly constrained, and Irish courts will not conduct a merits review of foreign maintenance determinations. The decision underscores the deference owed to administrative decisions from States that have made an Article 57 declaration, the strong evidential weight of Article 25 documentation (including statements of enforceability and proper notice), and the narrowness of Article 22 grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement.

For maintenance debtors, the practical lessons are stark. To resist enforcement, one must identify and prove a specific Convention ground—especially lack of proper notice or fulfilment of past-due payments with cogent evidence. Dissatisfaction with calculations, claims of informal arrangements, or requests for equitable reconsideration will not succeed. Where recalculation or modification is sought, the proper course is to pursue remedies in the State of origin (here, Norway/NAV). For practitioners and Central Authorities, the case confirms that a complete Article 25 package, coupled with evidence of prior communications and any credits for direct payments, should ordinarily lead to swift enforcement.

In short, the High Court affirms the Convention’s core principle: the State addressed enforces; it does not re-adjudicate.