Family Law Hub

Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996

International regs, published: 05/02/1996


Items referring to this

  • 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
  • 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
  • Guidance relating to ICACU Article, 13/11/2014, 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Report details steep rise in number of international family law enquiries, reports on implementation of the 2007 Hague Convention and sets out activities of the Office in 2012 News, 01/05/2013, 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
  • 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
  • Application by M for permission to relocate with the child to her birth place in Moscow. Application granted. Judgment, 23/01/2015, 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
  • 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, 05/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 03/03/2013, free

Published: 05/02/1996


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.


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