Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

FAMILY PROCEEDINGS/ JURISDICTION: Re W (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 703

Sep 29, 2018, 17:45 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA703
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 20, 2011, 10:08 AM
Article ID : 95335

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Rimer and Stanley Burnton LJJ; 17 June 2011)

A mirror order was made in respect of a child who was habitually resident in Malaysia. At issue was whether the jurisdiction thereby conferred on English court to make other orders relating to the child, who was a British citizen. The child was living with the British father under a Malaysian court order with unspecified ‘reasonable' contact to the mother.

A litigant seeking a mirror order does not accept the jurisdiction of the ancillary state to do any more than reiterate the provisions of the primary jurisdiction. The mirror order does not give rise to primary or shared jurisdiction to exercise discretionary powers in relation to residence or contact.

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from