1. Introduction

The case of G v B ([2024] IEHC 735) before the High Court of Ireland addresses significant issues pertaining to jurisdiction in cross-border maintenance disputes, particularly in the context of post-Brexit legal configurations. The parties involved, never married but cohabiting, have a young child with challenging health issues. The Applicant seeks maintenance for herself and the child under various family law statutes, while the Respondent contests the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, advocating for the matters to be addressed in England, the child's habitual residence, invoking principles of forum non conveniens.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson, deliberated on multiple jurisdictional and preliminary issues. The core dispute revolved around whether the Irish courts retain jurisdiction to determine maintenance obligations under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010 and related statutes, despite the child's habitual residence being in England, a third state post-Brexit. The Respondent's motion sought to dismiss the Irish court's jurisdiction, invoking both the argument that the Maintenance Regulation no longer applies between an EU Member State (Ireland) and a third state (England) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

After thorough analysis, the High Court concluded that the Maintenance Regulation still governs jurisdictional matters between Ireland and England, affirming the mandatory nature of Article 3 of the Regulation. Consequently, the court denied the Respondent's motion to dismiss jurisdiction or remit the case to England, determining that the Irish courts are the appropriate forum for the maintenance application.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

The Judgment extensively references pivotal cases that shaped the court's reasoning:

• Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801: Established that mandatory jurisdiction rules under the Brussels Convention preclude the application of forum non conveniens, ensuring legal certainty and predictability.
• R v P (Case C-468/18) [2020] 1 WLR 8: Reinforced the mandatory application of the Maintenance Regulation, negating the relevance of forum non conveniens in maintenance disputes.
• A v B (Case C-184/14) [2015] EU:C:2015:479: Clarified that child maintenance must be considered ancillary to parental responsibility, thereby preventing fragmentation of related proceedings.
• Re I (A Child) Contact Application: Jurisdiction [2009] 3 WLR 1299 and Re A (children) [2013] UKSC 60: Influential UK Supreme Court decisions underscoring the expansive jurisdiction under Brussels II bis.
• Goshawk Dedicated Limited and Others v. Life Receivables Ireland Limited [2009] IESC 7: Highlighted the non-applicability of forum non conveniens within EU jurisdictional regulations.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation and applicability of the Maintenance Regulation and its interplay with established European jurisdictional frameworks post-Brexit. Key points include:

• Maintenance Regulation Applicability: The court affirmed that the Maintenance Regulation's Article 3(a), which grants jurisdiction based on the defendant's habitual residence, remains applicable even when dealing with a third state like England post-Brexit. The Regulation's intent to protect maintenance creditors by providing clear jurisdictional guidelines was paramount.
• Rejection of Forum Non Conveniens: Drawing from precedents like Owusu and R v P, the court held that the discretionary power of forum non conveniens cannot override the mandatory jurisdictional rules established by the Maintenance Regulation. This ensures uniform application of jurisdiction and prevents litigation fragmentation.
• Impact of Brexit: Despite the UK's exit from the EU, the court determined that the Maintenance Regulation's jurisdictional criteria still govern the proceedings, ensuring that Irish courts retain jurisdiction based on the Respondent's residence in Ireland.
• Financial Considerations: The court evaluated the financial circumstances of both parties, recognizing the Applicant's dependency and the Respondent's assets and income sources within Ireland, further justifying the Irish court's jurisdiction.

3.3. Impact

This Judgment has profound implications for cross-jurisdictional maintenance claims involving EU Member States and third countries post-Brexit. It establishes that:

• Maintenance Regulation Remains Binding: The mandatory jurisdictional rules of the Maintenance Regulation prevail over traditional common law doctrines like forum non conveniens.
• Legal Certainty and Predictability: By upholding the Maintenance Regulation, courts ensure consistent and predictable jurisdictional outcomes, safeguarding the rights of maintenance creditors.
• Unified Legal Framework: The decision discourages the fragmentation of related proceedings across jurisdictions, promoting a unified approach to family law disputes.
• Post-Brexit Jurisdictional Clarity: Provides clarity on how maintenance obligations are to be adjudicated between EU Member States and third states, mitigating legal uncertainties arising from Brexit.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1. Maintenance Regulation

The Maintenance Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009) governs jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in maintenance obligations across EU Member States and, post-Brexit, between EU states and third countries.

4.2. Forum Non Conveniens

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine allowing courts to dismiss a case if another court or forum is deemed more appropriate for hearing the case. However, its applicability is limited when mandatory jurisdictional rules, such as those in the Maintenance Regulation, are in place.

4.3. Habitual Residence

Habitual residence refers to the place where a person has their center of interests. It's a key factor in determining jurisdiction under the Maintenance Regulation, ensuring that the courts most connected to the parties or the child handle the case.