- Everything (302)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (1)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (85)
- News (2)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (1)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (213)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The father applied for the summary return of three children to Germany. The mother had been the primary carer but the father had shared custody. After he went to court in Germany to re-establish contact, she clandestinely brought the children to the United Kingdom. Mr Robert Peel QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found that she had not made out a defence under Article 13(b), and ordered a mandatory return. The German courts were better placed to decide the issues of contact, custody and possible relocation. Judgment, 07/10/2019, free
- In a tweet: An application made by a father seeking a return order to Spain in respect of his daughter. Case note, 23/09/2019, free
- The mother wrongfully removed the son to the UK. Her application for asylum on the basis of being a victim of domestic violence was granted on appeal. The father was applying under the Hague Convention for summary return, and in this hearing applied for disclosure of the asylum files relating to the mother and child, contending that his Article 6 and 8 rights could not otherwise be preserved. The Secretary of State for the Home Department resisted disclosure. HHJ Corbett was satisfied that the impact of disclosure upon the asylum process would outweigh the impact of non-disclosure on the Article 6 and 8 rights of the father and child. The application for disclosure was refused. Judgment, 05/09/2019, free
- An appeal from orders for costs made against those responsible for keeping two children in the Ukraine, in breach of repeated orders of the High Court. This was described by Peter Jackson LJ as "the grossest breach of trust perpetrated by individuals who appear to consider obedience to the law to be optional and disobedience affordable". He considered that there was nothing remotely surprising about the orders made in this case, and indeed found it difficult to envisage any proper alternative. Patten LJ and Lindblom LJ agreed, and the appeals were dismissed. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
- In a tweet: Successful application by a father (“F”) for return of the child to a state other than the one in which the family had been habitually resident when the wrongful removal occurred. Case note, 08/07/2019, free
- In a tweet: Successful application made under the Hague Child Abduction Convention despite a delay where mother (“M”) had been unaware of the Convention prior to her application. Case note, 08/07/2019, members only
- The mother appealed against an order for summary return of the child to Israel. Moylan LJ decided that the appeal must be dismissed. He found that there was no retention such that the 1980 Convention applied, but the judge had been entitled to make an order for the child's return under the court's inherent jurisdiction, and had taken into account the identified protective measures. Haddon-Cave LJ and Flaux LJ agreed. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
- The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
- The father applied for the summary return to Germany of his two-year-old daughter, after the mother did not bring her back from a holiday. However, the father had not applied in the German courts for custody or contact, nor had the mother applied for custody, and Mostyn J criticised them for instead "devoting all their forensic energy to fighting this procedural battle". He found that the father had acquiesced in Article 13.1(a) terms to the daughter's continued living in the UK, and it would be precipitate to order her summary return before the matter had been brought before a German court. Judgment, 03/06/2019, free
- The father applied for the summary return of his daughter to Israel. The mother claimed that the child had been habitually resident in England prior to the wrongful retention, and that returning her to Israel would place her at risk for the purposes of Art 13(b) of the 1980 Convention. MacDonald J found that the mother's oral and written evidence had to be treated with some caution. He ruled that, despite the father's consent to the move, the child remained habitually resident in Israel, due to the unsettled situation in London. Sufficient protective measures were in place, and the court exercised its discretion to order that the child be returned to Israel. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free