C v C (Jersey) -[2019] UKPC 40- (31 October 2019)

The appellant, Richard Todd QC, was recognized as the father of a boy born in June 2003 in Latvia by a Latvian court in 2006. Despite later claiming he was not the biological father, the Latvian court rejected his 2011 application to annul this paternity recognition, finding he failed to establish he was not the boy's biological father. The Royal Court of Jersey ordered the appellant to pay £5,000 monthly for the boy's benefit based on this Latvian recognition, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal, confirming the Jersey courts' jurisdiction to recognize the Latvian paternity declaration for financial support purposes.

The central legal issue in this case is whether the appellant, who was registered as the father of a child in Latvia in 2006, qualifies as a 'parent' of the child under Jersey law, thereby making him liable for financial support payments. The Court of Appeal held that the Jersey courts were entitled to recognize the Latvian court's declaration of paternity as establishing the appellant's parenthood for the purposes of Jersey law. The Privy Council was asked to determine whether the Royal Court of Jersey was correct in concluding that the appellant was a 'parent' of the boy based solely on the Latvian court's order, without having to determine for itself whether he was the boy's biological father.

The Privy Council concluded that the Court of Appeal was correct in recognizing the Latvian declaration of paternity as establishing the appellant's parental status under Jersey law, making him liable for financial provision for the child. The Court determined that the Jersey courts were not required to independently verify the appellant's biological paternity, as the Latvian court's declaration was sufficient. The Board found the appellant's subsequent actions, including his attempts to annul the paternity declaration after the mother sought financial support, to be 'deeply cynical' and that his appeal should be dismissed.

The Royal Court ordered the appellant to make periodical payments of £5,000 per month for the benefit of the boy, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Jersey.

The Privy Council held that the Jersey courts were entitled to recognize a foreign declaration of paternity made in Latvia under the principle of jurisdictional reciprocity, which requires courts to recognize foreign judgments of competent jurisdiction when circumstances are reciprocal. The court determined that the Latvian declaration establishing the appellant as the boy's father was valid and binding in Jersey for financial provision purposes, subject to public policy considerations.