Family Law Hub

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980

International regs, published: 25/10/1980

Items referring to this

  • Father's application pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction 1980 for summary return of the child to Germany where she was born. Application dismissed Judgment, 27/05/2015, free
  • News, 16/11/2012, 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
  • Proceedings brought by the applicant father in respect of his daughter for summary return to Italy pursuant to the provisions of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. It was his case that the child was habitually resident in Italy at the time of her removal from Hungary to the United Kingdom. Judgment, 16/06/2015, free
  • 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, 21/06/2011, members only
  • Case note, 27/03/2009, members only
  • Mother's application to take the child to India for a holiday was refused as the judge concluded that the risk of the mother not bringing him back to the UK outweighed the benefit to the child. The judge was also highly critical of the Legal Aid Agency who had refused the mother's application for prior authority to incur the fees of an expert, saying that "the facts of this present case strongly suggest that, administratively, the LAA is disorganised". Judgment, 05/08/2014, free
  • Application by father to relocate a child to Algeria and to stay proceedings in England under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Application refused. Judgment, 22/10/2015, free
  • 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
  • A return order was made such that the child, who had been abducted from Spain to live in the UK, was returned to Spain to live with his father. Judgment, 07/11/2018, free
  • Judgment, 30/01/2013, free
  • Case note, 06/02/2013, free
  • Case note, 02/12/2011, members only
  • Application by father under the Hague Convention for summary return of two children to Ireland, where it was accepted they had been habitually resident. Application dismissed on Article 13(b) grounds. Judgment, 04/05/2017, free
  • Father's application for the return of the child to Australia was dismissed as the child was not habitually resident in Australia at the time of his alleged wrongful removal from Australia to the UK. Judgment, 04/10/2016, 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
  • Mother's application for a variation of a return order (ordering that the child be returned to Holland) due to her being unable to accompany him as she had just given birth. The application was refused. Judgment, 30/11/2015, 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
  • Father's application for the return of the child to Spain after the mother had wrongfully removed him to the UK. The 'disastrous state of affairs' had resulted in the child being taken into care when the mother returned to Brazil and found herself unable to return to the UK. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against the dismissal of her application for summary return of the children to Spain was allowed and a return order was made. Judgment, 29/03/2018, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, free
  • A Hague Convention 1980 case which provides a useful reminder for the threshold of some of the various defences (consent, child’s objections and exposure to an unacceptable or intolerable risk of physical or psychological harm). All defences were rejected and a return order made. Judgment, 05/06/2014, free
  • Application pursuant to the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the 1980 Hague Convention for an order for the summary return of two children to the jurisdiction of Hungary. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 01/02/2018, 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
  • Judgment, 06/03/2007, free
  • A suspended return order, ordering the child to be returned to Poland, was made after the mothers defence provided by Art 13(b) of the Convention was rejected. The return order was suspended for 10 weeks because the father had been deported from Poland and there was no clear indication as to whether he would be able to return - this would permit the mother to make an application in the Polish court on notice to the father for interim permission to remove the child from Poland to the UK. Judgment, 14/10/2016, free
  • Case note, 15/07/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against a refusal by the judge to order the summary return of the children to Australia in circumstances where the father had agreed that the mother could stay in the UK with the children for a year. This lengthy judgment discusses the issue of anticipatory retention in detail, and the matter was sent back to the Family Division of the High Court before a different judge to determine the date of retention. Judgment, 13/07/2017, free
  • Hague wrongful retention case brought by a mother living in Spain against a father living in England. Judgment, 18/03/2016, free
  • An application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 concerning a child whose mother, who lived in Australia, was seeking an order for his return to Australia so that his future could be decided there. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • Child aged 15 was joined as a party to proceedings in which mother was seeking a summary return to the US as she claimed that he had been wrongfully retained in the UK by his father. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • Mother's application to have Hague proceedings withdrawn. The proceedings had reached a curious position in that the mother, who was seeking the return of the child to the US, sought to abandon her application for an order for return and the father, who was opposing the return, sought, nominally, to resist the withdrawal of an application designed to achieve that end, at least until further substantive welfare orders were made. Judgment, 21/03/2016, free
  • An order for the return of the child to Romania was made after the judge rejected the father's contention that the mother had agreed for her to live with him in the UK. Judgment, 15/05/2017, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which refused permission for her to have staying contact with her daughter in Florida for fear of her not returning the child to the UK. The appeal was allowed, and a package of protective measures was also put in place. Judgment, 14/12/2015, free
  • Father's application to return child to Switzerland, following alleged wrongful abduction. Dismissed on grounds that the child was habitually resident in the UK. Judgment, 15/02/2018, 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
  • 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 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
  • Case note, 18/11/2011, members only
  • Case note, 01/04/2011, 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
  • Nigel Shepherd of Mills & Reeve reviews two recent judgments in which arbitration has been considered in the family law context. Article, 11/02/2013, free
  • Hague Convention proceedings brought by F who maintained he had not consented to the children being permanently relocated from the USA to England. The judge declined to exercise the inherent jurisdiction as it would not be in the interests of the children's welfare to return them to the USA. Judgment, 18/03/2014, 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
  • Mother was given permission to remain in the UAE with the child until 2020 and for the child to stay with the father in the UK during the holidays. Judgment, 07/08/2017, 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
  • Case note, 07/05/2010, members only
  • Guidance relating to ICACU Article, 13/11/2014, free
  • Father's application for summary return of the child to Italy failed as the judge found that the child had no habitual residence which meant that there was no habitual residence in Italy. Judgment, 19/10/2015, free
  • The issue on this appeal was whether the child, who was the daughter of an Italian father and a Latvian mother, should be returned to Italy (which is agreed to have been her country of habitual residence at the relevant time) following her wrongful abduction from Italy to England by her mother in February 2016. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 31/10/2017, free
  • Case note, 05/02/2013, free
  • Case note, 21/12/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 29/05/2012, free
  • Refusal of F's application for summary return of child wrongfully removed from the USA by M on the bases of i) the child's objections and ii) he had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate for the court to take account of his views. Judgment, 22/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 20/03/2013, free
  • 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. Case note, 18/02/2014, free
  • Case note, 10/10/2011, members only
  • 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
  • Case note, 14/12/2011, members only
  • Training notes to accompany Timothy Scott QC's recorded webinar on International Family Law Training note, 09/10/2013, 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
  • 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
  • Case note, 28/11/2011, members only
  • Case note, 10/03/2011, 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
  • Appeal by mother against order for return of child to Lithuania under the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother argued that the child objected (and was mature enough to do so) and would suffer harm under Art 13(b). Appeal dismissed as, broadly, it was open to the judge to reach the conclusions she did. Judgment, 17/07/2015, free
  • Here there was no dispute that the mother (“M”) had failed to return the child to Lithuania and that this had been in breach of the father’s (“F”) rights of custody. She argued that the child objected to being returned to Lithuania and that, at nearly 11 years old, the child was of sufficient maturity to have her views taken into account. M also pleaded the defence that there was a grave risk that the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm if she were returned. CAFCASS reported that the child had a very strong wish to stay in the UK. At first instance, the second defence had been quickly dismissed. However, it was found that the child’s objections amounted to objections in Hague terms and F’s application for a return order was refused. The Court of Appeal dismissed F’s appeal, finding that there had been sufficient foundation for the decision reached at first instance. Judgment, 21/10/2014, free
  • Mother's application for a return order in respect of a 15 year old Hungarian boy who was living in the UK with his father. Case note, 11/03/2014, free
  • Case note, 24/06/2009, members only
  • Case note, 30/10/2009, members only
  • 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
  • Father's application under the 1980 Hague Convention seeking summary return of his son to the USA succeeded. Judgment, 20/07/2018, 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
  • 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
  • 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. Case note, 18/02/2014, 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
  • Hague Convention case where the child, whom the judge ruled was habitually resident in the UK and had been made a ward of court soon after birth, had been taken to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. At the time the father was under an order of probation awarded by a criminal court in relation to an offence of domestic violence. The judge agreed that the name of the father and the child could be made public, emphasising that "this is not a secret court." Judgment, 24/03/2014, free
  • Application by Spanish father for the return of his son who was of Portuguese and Angolan nationality and who had lived outside the UK for more than 2 years. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 05/05/2016, 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
  • 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
  • Case note, 17/03/2011, members only
  • Fathers application for the return of two children to Ireland after they were forceably removed to the UK by mother was refused because of the objections of the older child. Judgment, 09/02/2015, free
  • A successful application by a father (“F”) for an order for the return of his son to Israel. The mother (“M”) had retained the child in this jurisdiction at a point where the child was habitually resident in Israel and had failed to establish a defence under Article 13(b). F’s undertakings meant that the court was satisfied that the return to Israel would not give rise to a grave risk that the child would suffer psychological harm or be placed on an intolerable situation. Judgment, 22/10/2015, free
  • Case note, 05/12/2012, free
  • Judgment, 13/11/2012, free
  • Mother's application under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of the child to Canada, from where it was alleged the child has been wrongfully retained. The court ruled that the child was not habitually resident in Canada immediately before or at the time of the alleged wrongful retention but was habitually resident in England. In light of this finding the mother's claim failed. Judgment, 24/01/2017, 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
  • Father's application for the summary return of the child to Belgium was dismissed because Belgium would not permit either the child or his mother lawfully to enter Belgium and remain there, their asylum applications having failed. Since the order was made, the mother and child have been granted asylum in the UK for 5 years. Judgment, 17/12/2015, free
  • Application by mother for permission permanently to relocate the child to Sweden and consequential adjustments to contact. Mostyn J allows the application and also comments on Payne v Payne. Judgment, 16/12/2014, free
  • Application by the civil partner of the mother (the civil partner having no rights of custody to the child) to have the child returned to Ireland after the mother came to the UK with the child on holiday and then decided to stay indefinitely. The court refused to make the return order on the basis that the Irish court, which was dealing with the civil partner's application to become a guardian to the child, had not, at a previous hearing, ordered the child to remain in Ireland. This was not a case of wrongful removal and the court accepted undertakings from the mother that she would co-operate with the Irish proceedings. Judgment, 26/05/2017, free
  • Case note, 05/08/2011, members only
  • Father's application under Hague Convention 1980 seeking an order for the summary return of his children to Australia. The court found that the children were habitually resident in the UK at the date on which the children were allegedly 'wrongfully retained' and it followed that the children were not wrongfully retained at all. The father's application therefore failed. Judgment, 27/01/2017, 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
  • Application by father applied to ECHR claiming that the Hungarian authorities failed to ensure the enforcement of decisions concerning contact with his child in breach of Art 8. Held, the Hungarian authorities had acted in breach of the father's Art 8 European Convention rights. Judgment, 18/06/2013, free
  • Father's application to have his child returned to Japan after the mother took him to the UK without his permission. An order for the child's return was made. Judgment, 14/08/2014, free
  • Mother wanted to take the 4 children for a holiday to India, a trip which was opposed by father on the basis that the mother might not return to England. The judge agreed that the consequences of wrongful retention were so great and the safeguarding measures so uncertain that it would not be in the children's best welfare interests for permission to be granted. The mother's application was therefore refused. The judge also expressed dismay over the rejection of the mother's application for legal aid, which meant that the decision had to be made without the benefit of expert evidence. Judgment, 12/03/2014, 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
  • Case note, 15/07/2012, 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
  • Case note, 17/03/2009, members only
  • Case note, 08/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 02/07/2012, free
  • Case note, 08/07/2012, members only
  • Case note, 10/06/2011, members only
  • Case note, 01/12/2009, members only
  • Case note, 21/12/2011, members only
  • Application by the Solicitor General to commit the M to prison for failing to comply with an order to return the children to F on a specific date and time. The President found that matters beyond the M's control had meant that the order could not be complied with, and further that, even if there had been a breach, that breach had not continued because the order did not require her to do anything at any time thereafter, nor did it spell out what was to be done if, for any reason, there had not been compliance by the specified time. Judgment, 22/08/2013, free
  • Application by the Solicitor General to commit the M to prison for failing to comply with an order to return the children to F on a specific date and time. The President found that matters beyond the M's control had meant that the order could not be complied with, and further that, even if there had been a breach, that breach had not continued because the order did not require her to do anything at any time thereafter, nor did it spell out what was to be done if, for any reason, there had not been compliance by the specified time. Case note, 27/09/2013, members only
  • Appeal against LCG v RL [2013] EWHC 1383 (Fam) decision. Case note, 27/09/2013, members only
  • Case note, 16/02/2011, members only
  • Case note, 03/12/2009, members only
  • Order requiring the firm of solicitors who were contacted by a solicitor on behalf of the mother to attend before the High Court so that, after hearing proper representations from them, the court could consider and rule upon the extent, if any, to which they should be required to disclose information relating to the whereabouts of two children. The court did not summon the grandparents to court to give information relating to their whereabouts because the court did not have jurisdiction, the children not living in or being habitually resident in the UK. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • Case note, 14/05/2010, members only
  • Case note, 12/05/2010, members only
  • An application by the husband for an order granting permission to appeal the order of a Deputy District Judge whereby he stayed the wife's divorce proceedings but excepted from that stay her application for a Legal Services Payment Order. Mr Justice Mostyn gave permission for the appeal and allowed it, saying that by the terms of FPR 2010 rule 9.7(1) an application for an LSPO is for an interim order, just as is an application for an order for maintenance pending suit. Such an application is dependent for its existence and validity on the continuance of the main suit. If the main suit is stayed then all subsidiary ancillary applications for financial relief are stayed, and a fortiori all applications and orders for interim relief, whether for maintenance pending suit or an LSPO. Judgment, 10/03/2014, 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
  • Case note, 02/12/2011, members only
  • Case note, 14/05/2008, members only
  • Case note, 16/09/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 16/09/2011, 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
  • Judgment, 27/02/2013, 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
  • An unsuccessful appeal against a refusal to order that a child be summarily returned to Spain. The Court of Appeal also refused to join the child as a party as that application had only been made during the appeal proceedings. Judgment, 10/02/2015, free
  • Application made by the mother of three children seeking their summary return to Australia under the Hague Convention 1980. The application was opposed by the children's father, who argued that the children came to live in the UK permanently with the mother's consent. An order for summary return was made. Judgment, 25/01/2017, free
  • In brief: Following the making of an order returning the child to Spain from England, the mother’s (“M”) mental health rapidly deteriorated. She successfully applied to the High Court to have the order set aside and a re-hearing listed following a psychiatric assessment. The Court of Appeal upheld the set aside, concluding that the High Court has the power under the inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside 1980 Hague Convention final orders. The power can be used where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances which undermines the basis on which the original order was made. Here the original return order had been made where the court found that M had not made out her Article 13(b) defence which included M’s claims that there were grave risks to her mental health. Judgment, 16/08/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which stated that the children must be returned to the USA, if necessary without her if she could not obtain a visa. The appeal was allowed and that part of the order was discharged. However, the order still stated that, provided a visa was granted to the mother, the children would return. Judgment, 03/04/2018, free
  • Judgment, 04/04/2007, free
  • Judgment, 18/11/2012, free
  • Case note, 05/12/2012, free
  • Father's application for the summary return of the children to the USA pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The application was allowed and a return order was made. Judgment, 05/02/2018, free
  • Case note, 05/02/2013, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which ordered that the children be returned to Canada was dismissed. Judgment, 29/05/2018, free
  • A declaration was made that the mother had wrongfully removed the child to Hungary the day after a prohibited steps order had been made, but which had not been served on the mother because she was not at home when the process server tried to serve the order. Judgment, 26/05/2017, free
  • Judgment, 02/02/2012, free

Published: 25/10/1980

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