Family Law Hub

Council Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIA)

International regs, published: 27/11/2003

Topics

Items referring to this

  • Appeal against a decision that the three children should be returned to Hungary despite the 2 older children objecting. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
  • Tim Scott QC from 29 Bedford Row explains the rationale behind the 1996 Hague Convention, which came into force last November, describes the structure and contents of the Convention and provides an explanation of the relevant articles. Article, 23/10/2013, members only
  • Appeals against (1) a collection order made in relation to the child at a hearing without notice to the father and (2) an order requiring the return of the child to Sweden the following day "unless … a court in Sweden makes an order that the child can remain in the ... father's care until the conclusion of the case". The first appeal was dismissed but the second appeal was allowed, the court saying that although the judge was rightly concerned to act quickly in the interests of the child, there was no reason in the present case to abandon the Hague Convention proceedings in favour of Article 20 of BIIA. Judgment, 23/06/2016, free
  • M's appeal where the issue was whether the High Court of England and Wales had jurisdiction to order the 'return' to this country of a small child who had never been present here on the basis that he was habitually resident here or that he had British nationality. Appeal allowed, the SC holding that the court had inherent jurisdiction to make the orders in this case on the basis of the child's British nationality. The case was however remitted to the judge to consider as a matter of urgency whether it was appropriate to exercise this exceptional jurisdiction. Judgment, 10/09/2013, free
  • The latest in the case involving the return of 4 children from Pakistan, where the 3 eldest were habitually resident in England, but the youngest was born in Pakistan and had never set foot in England. Mrs Justice Parker ruled that the return order still stood in respect of the 3 older children but that, as the youngest was a sibling and they were a group of 4, their futures should be heard together. F now accepted that he should bring the children back to England but until the children were returned, or at least on their way, the judge refused to release funds of the F which were subject to a freezing order where such a release might give more opportunity for obstruction. Judgment, 11/11/2013, free
  • Case note, 01/11/2011, members only
  • Judgment deciding whether proceedings concerning contact and residence should be transferred to Poland, where the mother and child now live, under Art 15 of Brussels II Revised. Judgment, 09/12/2014, free
  • Case note, 25/06/2009, members only
  • Case note, 21/06/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 24/08/2012, members only
  • Application by mother to have the children, who were living in Somalia, to be returned to the UK. The judge determined that the English court had jurisdiction in relation to the children in Somalia, and would in the circumstances of this case exercise it and order their return. Judgment, 18/12/2015, free
  • Judgment, 22/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 23/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 01/12/2008, members only
  • Both parents were currently present and resident in London as were the 3 children. However, the mother had moved with the children from France to London without the father's knowledge. There were subsisting French orders which provided that the three children should be in the habitual custody or residence of their father in London but the father was not apparently seeking to enforce those orders, but, rather, that the children return forthwith in France, albeit that he remained posted here. The judge said that although patently there was an historical wrongful removal and abduction of these children, the situation that now obtains simply was not the sort of situation at which the Hague Convention was directed and the proceedings were stayed until the conclusion of the proposed proceedings by the father for recognition and enforcement of the French orders. Judgment, 02/11/2015, free
  • Case note, 31/05/2011, members only
  • Appeal by father against an order declaring that the children were habitually resident in Canada and that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the application by the children's father for a child arrangements order and prohibited steps order under the Children Act 1989 as amended, and further discharged an earlier prohibited steps order under which the mother had been prohibited from removing the children from England and Wales. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 09/03/2018, free
  • This case concerned the habitual residence of two children who were born and raised in France. The mother moved to Scotland with the children with the agreement of the father, who remained in France. The intention was that the mother and children would stay in Scotland for about a year. The relationship broke down while she was still in Scotland. The issue at stake was whether the children were habitually resident in Scotland (as contended by the mother) or France (as contended by the father). The Outer House of the Court of Session concluded that the children were still habitually resident in France. The Inner House reversed that decision and ruled that they were habitually resident in Scotland. The father appealed. The important consideration for the Supreme Court was whether the residence had the necessary quality of stability, not whether it was necessarily intended to be permanent. They ruled that the children were habitually resident in Scotland. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Application by mother, resident in Mexico, for return of her 15 year old daughter under the Hague Convention. Cobb J concludes that the child objected, and was of an age and maturity where he should take account of her views, but nevertheless uses his discretion to order her return. Judgment, 09/09/2014, free
  • Appeal arising from application by father for return of child to France under the 1980 Hague Convention where return had been stayed pending this appeal by the mother on Article 13(b) grounds. Appeal dismissed. The judge's solution in the lower court was not wrong as she had considered the material factors with her 'eyes open' to the potential problems involved. Judgment, 28/03/2014, free
  • Appeal against a decision that the child was not habitually resident in the UK at the time Children Act proceedings were started because she had lost her habitual residence in this country upon her departure with the respondent for Pakistan, albeit that, in the judge's view, she had probably not yet acquired a habitual residence in Pakistan. The judge also declined to exercise the inherent jurisdiction saying that the facts of the present case did not justify such a course. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • Mother asserted that the UK courts did not have jurisdiction to make orders relating to her child's welfare and protection because the child was habitually resident in Sweden. Case note, 14/01/2014, free
  • Judgment, 08/08/2012, free
  • The ex-wife's application for enforcement of the provisions of an order relating to maintenance was stayed according to Art 12 of the Maintenance Regulation until the Italian court had determined the question of its jurisdiction . Judgment, 10/05/2017, free
  • Application by father for summary return of child to France and involving issues of settlement. Application granted as none of the defences under the 1980 Hague Convention were satisfied. Judgment, 17/07/2015, free
  • Case note, 27/07/2010, members only
  • Applicant mother was seeking the return of the 2 children from Madagascar where they were living with the father after being wrongfully removed from the UK. A return order was made. Judgment, 10/05/2017, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2013, free
  • Application for maintenance pending suit arising from a long marriage of over 40 years and involving considerations of habitual residence Judgment, 07/04/2014, free
  • Long running financial remedy proceedings where the wife was seeking a settlement in England rather than Malaysia. This judgment involves an application to dismiss the wife's petition and consideration of MPS / legal funding prior to further hearings in the English courts. Judgment, 14/05/2014, free
  • Judgment, 24/05/2007, free
  • Father's appeal against a UK decision that allowed an appeal by the child's mother against the recognition and enforcement of an order made by the Romanian Court of Appeal in Bucharest. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/01/2016, free
  • Appeal concerning enforcement of Romanian custody order under BIIR. Struck out as the Court decided on a preliminary issue that it has no jurisdiction to hear it. Judgment, 22/06/2016, free
  • The father was seeking a child arrangements order, a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order. He subsequently issued an application for a return order. The purpose of this hearing was to determine a preliminary issue concerning the jurisdiction of the English court to adjudicate upon the father's applications, that issue hinging on the court's determination of whether the child was habitually resident in England. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • Mother's application under the Hague Child Abduction Convention and Brussels II Revised for the summary return to France of three children. A return order was made. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • Father's application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction that the children be returned to Portugal. Judgment, 15/09/2015, free
  • Application by wife for a Hadkinson order preventing the husband from pursuing an appeal that is awaiting determination on the basis that he is in contempt of court for having failed to comply with orders for maintenance pending suit, costs and a legal services payment order. Application granted. Judgment, 01/10/2018, free
  • Determination of the wife's domicile to decide if the UK court had jurisdiction to entertain the parties' divorce petition. H was a British citizen, and domiciled in the UK although habitually resident in the Netherlands. W was habitually resident in the Netherlands but the question of her domicile was in question - was it in China where she was born, in the UK where the parties were married and lived for a few years or was it in the Netherlands? The court ruled that it was in the Netherlands and as such the UK courts did not have jurisdiction. Judgment, 27/01/2014, free
  • Sir Peter Singer's High Court judgment in which he has to grapple with 2 novel issues in a case involving proceedings in the UK and America. The M had brought the child to the UK after the American court ruled that he was habitually resident in the UK. This was subsequently overturned and the M ordered to return the child to F in America. The main issues were: 1) did the decision of the US court have the consequence of rendering the removal ''wrongful'' for the purposes of Article 3 of the Hague Convention?; 2) If the removal of the child was not ''wrongful'', then did the US appellate decision and the consequential US order requiring the mother to return the child mean that she had wrongfully retained the child away from the USA? Or was the child's habitual residence in England? Judgment, 11/09/2013, free
  • The issue for consideration in this appeal are what remedies are available to the parent whose child is removed from the country of habitual residence pursuant to a return order made on a successful application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention which is subsequently set aside by an appellate court. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • Hearing to determine: i) whether the child of a Scottish father and Italian mother should be returned from Italy to this country after it had already been decided that this court had jurisdiction under BIIR; (ii) whether the proceedings here should be stayed or transferred to Italy under Article 15 BIIR; and/or (iii) whether the return application should be adjourned pending a later determination of the Article 15 application. All applications refused. The judge also made an order preventing the mother from publicising the case or allowing the child to be examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist for the purpose of these proceedings. Judgment, 17/02/2014, free
  • A public children law case in which the President was dealing with three main issues in relation to the care of a 12 year old boy who, despite being born, and living his whole life, in England, was also a citizen of Slovakia. The issues addressed were Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, Articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the jurisprudence on reporting restriction orders. Judgment, 15/01/2014, free
  • Husband initiated divorce proceedings in France, wife subsequently started proceedings in the UK. The question here was whether the UK court should decline jurisdiction by dismissing the wife's application or by whether it could be revived in the event that the husband's French suit was dismissed. Judgment, 29/01/2016, free
  • W and H were both Italian nationals but habitually resident in the UK. The divorce petition was lodged in Italy by H before the W lodged hers in the UK, and the issue before this court was whether, by reason of the Maintenance Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, the English courts were precluded from proceeding with the wife's Schedule 1 application because of the Italian proceedings, specifically whether the "Lis pendens" provisions in Article 12 were engaged. Judgment, 24/09/2013, free
  • The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an application under the Children Act 1989 in respect of two children. The father, the applicant, contended that the court had jurisdiction on one of two grounds: (1) that at the date on which proceedings were started the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and that, as a result, this court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of BIIA, or alternatively (2) that the children were wrongfully removed from England and Wales to Latvia at a point when they were habitually resident here, that the father had neither consented to nor acquiesced in their removal, and that as a result this court had jurisdiction under Article 10 of BIIA. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
  • Judgment, 18/11/2011, free
  • In a tweet: Test in Re A (children) [2013] UKSC 60 was used to assess whether the parties were habitually resident in England Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Case note, 17/03/2011, members only
  • F had abducted the child whilst in Poland and brought him to England. M was seeking a declaration of enforcement of a Polish order, when an interim residence order was made in her favour in respect of the child. Judgment, 03/10/2013, free
  • Training note, 01/07/2012, members only
  • Case note, 02/04/2009, members only
  • The court decided that it was appropriate in this case to submit a request to the courts of Spain under Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 for the transfer of proceedings concerning two children to the UK court. Judgment, 16/10/2017, free
  • An order was made that the children be returned to Israel but it would not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal of its decision on the appeal by the mother and the children against the refusal of the grant of asylum by the Home Secretary. Judgment, 15/09/2017, free
  • Application by father for the return to Dublin of his son who lived with him there from about December 2011 until he went to but did not return from agreed staying contact with his mother in London. Judgment, 14/03/2016, free
  • A complex case involving proceedings in three jurisdictions (England and Wales, Italy and Finland) and questions of interpretation of the governing European Regulation, decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and domestic decisions. Case note, 18/02/2014, free
  • A complex case involving proceedings in three jurisdictions (England and Wales, Italy and Finland) and questions of interpretation of the governing European Regulation, decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and domestic decisions. The parties were both Italian nationals and the questions that had to be decided were: 1) whether an order granting the M temporary leave to remove the child was a "final order" or a "provisional order" for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 and 2) whether the Italian court had jurisdiction. The UK proceedings were stayed. Judgment, 24/01/2014, free
  • The questions that required determination were a) whether Mostyn J was right to stay the Children Act proceedings brought by the mother under Art 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (BIIR) and b) whether he erred in ordering that mother take the child to Italy on or before 18 December 2013. Appeal against the stay was dismissed; reserved judgment as to the return to Italy. Judgment, 23/05/2014, free
  • The court ruled that it did have jurisdiction in relation to proceedings issued by the mother under the inherent jurisdiction concerning two children where the mother alleged that the father had removed their passports thus preventing them from returning to the UK from the UAE. Judgment, 16/08/2017, free
  • Judgment, 05/03/2013, free
  • Guidance relating to ICACU Article, 13/11/2014, free
  • In a factually complicated case, in which the mother (“M”) effectively only gave written submissions, Mostyn J concluded that while it would lead to inconsistent judgments in England and Poland, he should order the children be returned here Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Father's application to enforce a contact order in circumstances where the order stated that the children should remain habitually resident in the UK despite living in Spain with their mother. The court ruled that the order was not enforceable. Judgment, 09/07/2015, free
  • Judgment, 29/05/2012, free
  • Case note, 10/09/2010, members only
  • Application under the Hague Convention for the summary return of three children from this country to the Netherlands. An order was made for the return of the children to the Netherlands within 14 days. Judgment, 11/12/2013, free
  • Appeal by father against decision that the court had no jurisdiction to hear an application for return of children from Bangladesh. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 29/07/2014, free
  • Case note, 10/10/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 22/06/2012, free
  • The majority held that the child, who had been taken to Pakistan, had not lost her habitual residence and therefore the appellant's application under the 1989 Act can and should proceed to substantive determination by the High Court. Judgment, 03/02/2016, free
  • Timothy Scott QC rounds up all the latest developments in international family law touching on case law and policy developments such as how the Maintenance Regulation is operating 2 years on, an update on BIIR cases and staying proceedings and Hemain injunctions. Webcast, 09/10/2013, members only
  • Training notes to accompany Timothy Scott QC's recorded webinar on International Family Law Training note, 09/10/2013, members only
  • Training note, 11/06/2015, members only
  • A foundation course for practitioners seeking to understand the principles and key regulations of European family law Training note, 01/05/2012, members only
  • Appeal by mother against order to return child to Morocco and involving consideration of the 1996 Hague Convention (only the 2nd CoA judgment to do so). Appeal allowed as the judge did not have jurisdiction to make the order under Article 11. Judgment, 15/04/2015, free
  • Father's appeal against a court ruling that the child was habitually resident in Finland and therefore the UK court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the father's applications in relation to the child. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • The judge in the High Court found that the father had not consented to the removal of the child from Morocco, which was wrongful, and that he had been habitually resident in Morocco before his removal. He ordered the mother to return the child to Morocco. The mother appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the English courts did not have jurisdiction under the 1996 Convention, or on any other basis, on the facts of this case. In cases where a child was habitually resident in another state, as in this case, jurisdiction only arose in cases of urgency under article 11. This was not such a case because the father could have made an immediate application to the Moroccan court for a return order. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal against this ruling, holding that it was open to the English courts to exercise the article 11 jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal under the 1996 Convention, and it ordered that the case be returned to the High Court for a decision as to whether it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances of this case. Judgment, 25/11/2015, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, free
  • Judgment, 02/12/2012, free
  • Case note, 28/11/2011, members only
  • A case concerning parallel divorce proceedings in England and Spain. Case note, 18/02/2014, free
  • An unusual case where the English court was first seised of the parties' divorce proceedings. The husband then arranged for the divorce proceedings by mutual consent to be issued in the Spanish court. The English proceedings were then stayed (and subsequently dismissed) on the primary ground that the parties had entered into an agreement (the "Agreement") whereby the wife undertook that she had abandoned the English divorce proceedings, so that she was estopped from arguing that those proceedings remained extant. The wife argued that the effect of the Council Regulation No 2201/2003 was to prevent the court implementing any agreement by the parties as to the appropriate jurisdiction for divorce proceedings. It was submitted that the effect of articles 16 and 19 of the Council Regulation was to give jurisdiction to the court first seised of the matter, and to require the second court to decline jurisdiction in favour of the first court. In this case, the English court was seised first, and accordingly no subsequent agreement of any kind could displace its jurisdiction. Lord Justice Vos ruled that the judge was wrong to order a stay of the proceedings on the basis of the Agreement. He ought to have held that the provisions of article 19 of the Council Regulation were applicable and could not be overridden by the Agreement. In these circumstances, the suggestion that the proceedings should be taken to have lapsed could not succeed. Judgment, 29/01/2014, free
  • Case note, 19/04/2010, members only
  • Robust guidance from Mostyn J that, for those cases where a residence or similar parental responsibility made in another EU country exists and a child has allegedly been wrongfully retained, parties should be looking at Brussels II Revised and not Hague. Judgment, 05/07/2012, free
  • Case note, 15/07/2012, free
  • Application by a father for the return of his daughter to Poland pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. An order for her return was made after the judge held that the mother's defence under Article 13b was not sustainable. Judgment, 01/05/2018, free
  • Case note, 24/06/2009, members only
  • A Hague Convention child abduction case where the M, who spoke little or no English, was refused legal aid because, as the Cafcass report had not yet been prepared, insufficient information was provided as to the risks the father posed and the prospects of a successful outcome were poor. Case note, 18/02/2014, free
  • A Hague Convention child abduction case where the M, who spoke little or no English, was refused legal aid because, as the Cafcass report had not yet been prepared, insufficient information was provided as to the risks the father posed and the prospects of a successful outcome were poor. The M appealed to the Legal Aid Agency but they had not had time to reconsider their decision before this hearing. The judge expressed dismay over the waste of time and taxpayers money that this delay had on proceedings and adjourned the hearing, which meant that, by the time the case was heard, the six week time limit under the Council Regulation Brussels IIA will have been doubled. Judgment, 23/12/2013, free
  • Judgment concerning return of a child to the US where the mother had successfully obtained a ruling in Texas that the child had been wrongfully retained in the US, the father had complied with that order and then had appeals turned down by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Father's appeal allowed. Judgment, 04/12/2013, free
  • Mother's appeal against decision to return child to Malta where the High Court judge had met with the child in court and it was submitted that her decision had been improperly influenced by what was gleaned at the meeting. Appeal allowed Judgment, 02/05/2014, free
  • Case note, 24/08/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • The mother's argument, that a summary return of the child to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation, was rejected. The child did object to returning to Bulgaria, but despite this the court concluded that he should be returned; accordingly the father's application for summary return under the Hague Convention succeeded. Judgment, 16/11/2015, free
  • In the words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson, this is "another example of the painful legal confusion that can arise when children are born as a result of unregulated artificial conception". The present applications arose from a same-sex relationship between Ms L and Ms C. Ms C gave birth to a child after artificial insemination and soon afterwards took the child to Ireland after their relationship broke down. Ms L had not seen the child since and was applying for a residence and contact order, and for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent'. It was held first that the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. Secondly, the court made a declaration that, at the date of the child's removal from England, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between the child and Ms L Judgment, 06/05/2014, free
  • Appeal against the Court of Appeal's ruling that 4 children, whose mother had taken them to her home country of Spain, had become habitually resident in Spain from that date. Despite the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the older child T should not be the subject of an order for return to Spain, the reversal of the judge’s ascription to them of a habitual residence in Spain on 5 January 2013 was necessary, for that would preclude any order of the Spanish court under article 11(8) of B2R. There was a subsidiary appeal against the refusal to allow T to be a party to proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed both grounds of appeal and reluctantly remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide whether any or all of the four children were habitually resident in Spain on 5 January 2013. If it turns out that any or all of the three boys were, it will also have to be decided whether to return them to Spain when their older sister, T, or any of their brothers, is not to return will place them in an intolerable situation. Judgment, 21/01/2014, free
  • The 4 children and M were Spanish nationals, F was English. M took the children back to Spain. After a few months they came back to the UK with F who did not return them to Spain. An order was made for their return which was resisted especially by the older child. The order in her case was overturned but the case of the other 3 children was remitted to the High Court. Discussion of the joinder of the children as parties. Judgment, 03/10/2013, free
  • Case note, 15/08/2013, members only
  • Application by wife that decrees nisi and absolute issued in Malaya in favour of the respondent husband should not be recognised in England and Wales. Application allowed primarily because the wife was not given reasonable notice of the Malaysian proceedings or a reasonable opportunity to participate in them. Judgment, 05/06/2015, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2006, free
  • A case involving the determination of habitual residence of a 15 year old girl, who was Romanian by birth, had lived most of her life in Spain, but was then brought to the UK early in 2013 by a man who had been 'sold' the girl by her mother. Mr Justice Cobb concluded that she was habitually resident in the UK - the fact that the girl's life was in many respects unconventional, occasionally lawless and generally unstructured did not mean that she had not in her own way – and to a significant degree – integrated into that society in which she lived in England. Judgment, 16/10/2014, free
  • Appeal against a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear proceedings in relation to the child where the judge ruled that the child had habitual residence in the UK despite having lived abroad since before February 2013. Munby P ruled that the judge had been wrong about the question of habitual residence and on his ruling that the mother had demonstrated an "unequivocal" acceptance of the jurisdiction. The order was set aside. Judgment, 16/12/2014, free
  • Appeal by mother against a ruling that the child, who had been brought to the UK by father, should not be returned to Hungary. The appeal was allowed and remitted to the Family Division to determine whether the child objected to a return to Hungary and if so whether, in the exercise of its discretion it should decline to order a summary return. Judgment, 28/11/2014, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order that she return the children to the UK from Poland after the English court ruled that they, and not the Polish court, had jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the court saying that the Polish court became and had remained seised of jurisdiction in relation to the children. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • The court cannot order a local authority to supervise contact in private law proceedings. Judgment, 28/07/2017, free
  • Father's appeal against orders for recognition and enforcement of a 2008 French order which ordered that the two children should live with the mother in France with contact being granted to the father. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 30/10/2016, free
  • Father's application for a summary return of the children to the jurisdiction of Romania. Application granted. Judgment, 03/10/2017, free
  • In a tweet: F awarded compensation where custody battle led to breach of human rights. Summary: The father (“F”) sought enforcement of a return order in the Slovakian courts. The district court had found that the order was not enforceable because it had not specified that it was directed at the mother (“M”). F lodged a constitutional complaint challenging various decisions and the original decisions were quashed. But on a rehearing, the district court came to the same conclusion. Following further constitutional proceedings (which agreed that F’s rights had been violated), F successfully complained to the ECtHR that the Slovakian enforcement courts had failed to secure respect for his family life. Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
  • Judgment, 03/09/2007, free
  • Judgment, 30/06/2004, free
  • The court had to decide whether the English or German court was first seised in circumstances where the wife had initially not validly served the divorce petition on the husband and the husband then served his petition in Germany during the subsequent period. The issue here was whether there had been an abuse of process on the part of the wife after the husband claimed that she had issued her petition simply to secure the English jurisdiction in the event that a divorce was needed and in fact the marriage had not at that time irretrievably broken down. The court ruled that the husband had known about the wife's petition before it was validly served and before he issued his own petition and that the English court had jurisdiction. Judgment, 17/10/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against orders whereby the order of the Bucharest Court of Appeal for her to return her son to the father who lived in Romania was recognised and registered for enforcement in England. Her appeal was allowed on the grounds that: 1) in the case of both orders, recognition must be refused under BIIR Article 23(b), (c) and (d); and 2) one order must be quashed for fundamental procedural defects. Judgment, 01/08/2014, free
  • Appeal by wife against an order, which said that the parties had divorced in France in 2015 and therefore the Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute granted in the UK in 2016 were null and void, on the basis that she did not have proper notice of the French divorce. The appeal was dismissed and the UK Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute were set aside. Judgment, 12/03/2018, free
  • Timothy Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row looks at the impact this Irish ruling may have on cases on the UK. Article, 17/01/2016, free
  • Wife's appeal against a stay of proceedings brought by her in England on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum to hear the proceedings (forum non conveniens). Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 20/10/2013, free
  • In brief: A summary return order was made returning the child to Israel in circumstances where the mother (“M”) had not made out that the child would be at grave risk of psychological harm if returned and appropriate undertakings were given by the father (“F”) meaning that the child would remain in M’s care until the Family Court of Jerusalem had dealt with matters. Judgment, 14/06/2018, free
  • Justice Committee publishes report on the implications of Brexit for lega services News, 22/03/2017, free
  • German mother was trying to enforce a German child maintenance order against the English father by applying directly to the Family Court. Mrs Justice Roberts referred, by means of questions, the preliminary issue, which was whether an application for enforcement of this type of maintenance order can be issued directly in the Family Court or whether, in all cases, the application must first be lodged with the Lord Chancellor for onward transmission to the Family Court through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Unit ("REMO"), to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Judgment, 21/01/2016, free
  • Judgment, 19/12/2007, free
  • Judgment, 08/08/2012, free
  • Judgment, 13/11/2012, free
  • A Hague Convention case where the English mother, who was granted custody of the child with permission for him to live in England with her, was allowed to take the child from Spain to England having made an undertaking to obey any order of the appeal court and return him if required to do so. The Moroccan father's appeal was successful but the mother did not comply with the order. The English court ordered that the child be returned to Spain. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • In this case, the judge explains the mechanics of international judicial liaison, and why it has so far failed in this case. The judge made limited orders in the absence of the father but confirmed that the child was habitually resident in the UK and that she should reside with the mother. Judgment, 03/03/2014, free
  • A case involving the residence of a child M, born to two US citizens but who had been living with mother in the UK for 6 years, where proceedings were ongoing in the UK and the USA. Discussion on the Office of International Family Justice and its role in supporting and facilitating cross-border judicial collaboration and direct judicial communication. The High Court determined, contrary to the US ruling, that the English court did have jurisdiction to conduct proceedings in the UK because the child was habitually resident here. Judgment, 18/09/2013, free
  • Substantive judgment in long-running Sch1 Children Act proceedings involving parties currently living or in prison in Australia. Judgment, 09/07/2014, free
  • Application for registration of an Order, originally made in the Australian Family Courts, under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. Moylan J has handed down the judgment to explain the procedure available when such an application is made. Judgment, 18/08/2014, free
  • Precedent, 04/04/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 05/04/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 04/04/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 04/04/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 01/04/2015, members only
  • Precedent, 04/04/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • Application by a father for the return of his daughter to Poland, pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention. Judgment, 16/05/2016, free
  • Fresh guidance issued by The President, 13 March 2018, covering procedure, case management and mediation in international child abduction cases Practice note, 13/03/2018, free
  • President's guidance on The International Child Abduction and Contact Unit Article, 13/11/2014, free
  • Judgment, 17/12/2012, free
  • Appeal by mother against orders finding that her child was habitually reisdent in England & Wales, not Italy, and for return of the child to England for assessment by Cafcass. Appeal on habitual residence allowed and remitted to High Court. Judgment, 23/07/2014, free
  • Father's application to have the child, who had been removed by the mother to Poland, returned to the UK. The application succeeded although the order was for the short term only. Judgment, 21/07/2016, free
  • Orders for the recognition and enforcement of Spanish orders, ordering the return of the children to Spain, were set aside. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
  • These proceedings concerned the father's application for the return of the child to Lithuania pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. Judgment, 29/09/2017, free
  • Applicant father was seeking an order for the immediate return of the children to Canada following their removal by their mother from that jurisdiction. An order for their return was made. Judgment, 14/06/2016, free
  • Judgment, 20/10/2010, free
  • Judgment from The President concerning validity of 180 divorce petitions fraudulently obtained for non-domiciled Italian couples through the use of a single UK PO box address. The divorce petitions were set aside. Judgment, 01/10/2014, free
  • Appeal by the H that the court in England and Wales did not have jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition because neither party to the marriage was habitually resident or domiciled in the jurisdiction on the date that it was issued. At first instance Holman J disagreed with the husband and held that each of the parties was domiciled in England and Wales at the relevant time. In this appeal the husband sought to establish that Holman J was in error; he asserted that a proper application of the relevant law to the facts of this case could only produce a conclusion that neither party was domiciled in England and Wales in August 2012. Further, depending on the outcome of his appeal in relation to domicile, the husband also sought to appeal orders for costs in relation to maintenance pending suit proceedings. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 17/02/2014, free
  • Mother's application for summary return of her daughters to Austria pursuant to the terms of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. An order for return was made which included a list of protective measures. Judgment, 09/07/2015, free
  • Judgment, 02/07/2012, free
  • Confirms that Article Regulation 2201 / 2003 makes clear that an abducting parent cannot assert a change of habitual residence in an act of wrongful retention. Case note, 01/06/2012, members only
  • Case note, 01/12/2009, members only
  • Judgment, 04/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 04/12/2012, free
  • Case note, 24/04/2012, free
  • Case note, 16/06/2009, members only
  • Case note, 21/12/2010, members only
  • Case note, 12/05/2010, members only
  • Appeal by mother against order for summary return of child to Russia and involving consideration and guidance from Ryder LJ on hearing the views of the child. Order set aside (reluctantly) and remitted for hearing before a different High Court judge. Judgment, 04/12/2014, free
  • Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 25/03/2013, free
  • After considering issues in relation to service, an order was made for the child to return to the UK from Spain in the short term so that CAFCASS could make an assessment which would inform the court before a final decision on where the child should live could be made. Judgment, 03/05/2018, free
  • The specific issues in this case were whether the court has the power to make a return order summarily at the outset of proceedings in England and, if it has, whether it should do so or should wait before exercising its substantive jurisdiction under BIIa until the determination of proceedings under the 1980 Convention in the other Member State. Judgment, 29/05/2018, free
  • Father's application for the return of his daughter to France after she was wrongfully removed by the mother to England. The application was granted. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • W's application for permission to appeal against the setting aside of a decree nisi, the W maintaining that the English court did have jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings because the H was habitually resident in the UK. Application refused. Case note, 18/09/2013, members only
  • The court had to decide whether the English courts had jurisdiction in respect of the child and, if so, whether England was the most convenient forum for the determination of the issues rather than South Korea. The court held that the English court had jurisdiction in respect of the child but that the jurisdiction of South Korea was clearly and distinctly more the appropriate forum. The English proceedings were thus stayed. Judgment, 16/10/2015, free
  • Case note, 13/12/2011, members only
  • Case note, 16/09/2011, members only
  • The child was the subject of proceedings in England and Spain. The English court had declared that she was habitually resident in the UK and made other consequential directions. The Spanish court had refused to return her to this jurisdiction pursuant to the Hague Convention. M's application was to set aside declarations made by the English Court as to (i) habitual residence (ii) wrongful retention. Alternatively she invited the court to reassess habitual residence as at today's date. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Judgment, 16/09/2011, free
  • Application for an order in wardship proceedings, or alternatively under the court's inherent jurisdiction, which would have the effect of amending an existing injunction previously made in the wardship proceedings and extending its duration beyond the ward's 18th birthday. Judgment, 13/06/2015, free
  • Father's application for return of his child to Malta under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. Mostyn J dismisses the application and also sets out a useful review of the principles involved. Judgment, 27/11/2014, free
  • Habitual residence under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2013, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, free
  • The husband wished to litigate matrimonial matters arising from the impending dissolution of his marriage in England; the wife wished to litigate in Malaysia. The judge ruled in favour of the husband. The wife appealed against an order which dismissed her application for (i) a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union; (ii) dismissal of the husband's petition; alternatively, (iii) a stay of the husband's petition. She also appealed the order that she shall make a payment of £100,000 on account of costs. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • Case note, 28/04/2014, free
  • Timothy Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row summarises the main points in the new EU Regulation which came into force on 11 January 2015 Article, 13/01/2015, free
  • Practice note looking at the welfare test, no order and no delay principles and the welfare checklist in relation to how the court approaches decision-making about children. Practice note, 25/04/2013, members only
  • The court ruled that even though the wife had served the divorce petition on the husband 4 months and one day after issue, the UK court was the court first seised. Judgment, 22/10/2016, free
  • The wife's divorce petition was issued in England in October 2015. An attempt to serve the petition on the husband was made in February 2016 in Germany where he was living at the time, but this failed because of insufficient address details being given by the wife. In the meantime, the husband had commenced divorce proceedings in Germany in January 2016. The husband was appealing against a ruling that the English court was first seised on the grounds that the wife had failed to take the required steps to serve the petition. The appeal was dismissed, the court saying that Rule 7.8 FPR simply requires the petitioner to serve the petition. No particular step is stipulated as having to take place "immediately" or by a certain date. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • In brief: The High Court ordered a child's return to England under BIIR following a non-return order being made summarily under the Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child abduction. The case highlights how a review under BIIR can lead to the reversal of a non-return order made summarily under different legislation and clarifies the framework within which the court determines applications in these circumstances. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • Proceedings brought by mother under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980 seeking the return of her son, who had lived most of his life in France, to the jurisdiction of France. The judge exercised his discretion by refusing to order the return on the grounds of the child's objections. Judgment, 11/09/2015, free
  • Judgment, 14/02/2011, free
  • Application by father for return of children to Pakistan under the 2003 protocol following their removal to the UK by the mother in 2010. Application refused because of the delay in making the application and 'fortified exceptionally by the strength of the children's wishes and feelings'. Judgment, 20/01/2015, free
  • Case note, 14/05/2012, free
  • Judgment concerning jurisdiction for divorce proceedings under BIIR where the husband had issued in Italy and the wife had filed petitions in England. The judge dismissed the wife's English petitions. Judgment, 27/11/2014, free
  • Appeal against an order requiring the husband to pay the wife £2,500 per month by way of interim periodical payments until further order and to pay directly to her solicitors, £3,000 per month by way of a legal fees allowance order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 18/05/2018, free
  • Judgment concerning continuing jurisdiction, continuing contact, mirror orders and a s91(14) application where the father had permanently relocated his son to Switzerland. Judgment, 03/07/2014, free
  • Judgment following a hearing to determine whether or not the court should exercise jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 in respect of an application by the mother for retrospective leave to remove the children temporarily to Spain and also for permission to relocate the children permanently in Spain. Judgment, 06/10/2016, free
  • Case note, 05/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 03/03/2013, free
  • The judge had to decide whether, as the father and the children's guardian maintained, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction over the child in respect of matters of parental responsibility or whether, as his mother argued, jurisdiction now rests with the courts of Northern Ireland. The judge ruled in favour of the father. Judgment, 19/03/2018, free
  • Application for permission to appeal an order where the judge had refused recognition of an apparently valid decree of divorce pronounced in Bulgaria on the ground that it was offensive to public policy. Judgment, 02/05/2013, free
  • Order permitting an NHS Trust to detain a child at an English hospital pending further Order of the High Court in the Republic of Ireland, and to provide the child with such treatment as it considers appropriate for her mental disorder, in the absence of her consent. The urgency of the case warranted the invoking of the court's inherent jurisdiction to supplement the provisions of Brussels IIA. Judgment, 11/04/2016, free
  • Judgment, 29/10/2012, free

Published: 27/11/2003

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item