High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division (appeal against registration and enforcement of a foreign measure)

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division (appeal against registration and enforcement of a foreign measure)

United Kingdom - England and Wales

9 July 2024

E v The Child and Family Agency of Ireland & Ors

[2024] EWHC 1778 (Fam)

Appellate Court

• Article 23(2)(d)
• Article 26
• Article 27

• Article 23(1)
• Article 25
• Article 26
• Article 28

Family Procedure Rules 2010

Not provided

A 16-year-old child appealed against the recognition and enforcement in England and Wales of Irish Special Care Orders made by the High Court of Ireland. The orders authorised his placement in special care accommodation in Ireland. The child argued that recognition should be refused under Article 23(2)(d) of the 1996 Hague Convention because enforcement would be contrary to English public policy and inconsistent with his best interests, particularly in light of his strongly expressed opposition to returning to Ireland. The High Court reviewed the recognition and enforcement provisions of the Convention and considered comparative authorities under Brussels IIa and the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention. The court emphasised that the public policy exception is to be interpreted very restrictively and can only be invoked where recognition would violate fundamental principles of the requested State. Having examined the Irish proceedings, the court found that the Irish judge had carefully considered the child's wishes, welfare and vulnerabilities and had reached a reasoned conclusion that return to Ireland was in his best interests. The circumstances therefore fell far short of the exceptional threshold required by Article 23(2)(d), and the appeal was dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the recognition, registration and enforcement in England and Wales of Irish Special Care Orders authorising the detention and supervision of a 16-year-old child. The child argued that recognition should be refused under Article 23(2)(d) because enforcement would be manifestly contrary to English public policy and inconsistent with his best interests. The court rejected that argument, holding that the public policy exception under Article 23(2)(d) is a very narrow one which applies only in exceptional circumstances. The Irish proceedings had afforded the child procedural safeguards, carefully considered his wishes and welfare, and reached conclusions substantially similar to those that would likely have been reached by an English court. Recognition and enforcement were therefore upheld.