Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles

BRUSSELS II REVISED, Art 15: Re K (Brussels II Revised, Art 15) [2013] EWCA Civ 895

Sep 29, 2018, 21:11 PM
Slug : brussels-ii-revised-art-15-re-k-brussels-ii-revised-art-15-2013-ewca-civ-895
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 7, 2013, 02:37 AM
Article ID : 103283

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Tomlinson, Briggs LJJ, 11 June 2013)

The one-year-old child was born in the UK to Slovakian, Romany parents who left Slovakia in flight from social services. The child was made subject to an interim care order due to the chaotic behaviour of the mother. The Slovak Central Authority contacted ICACU and thereafter the Republic of Slovakia was joined to the proceedings. The jurisdiction of the English court was accepted but a transfer of proceedings to the Slovakian jurisdiction was sought pursuant to Art 15 of BIIR.

Mostyn J found in favour of the Slovakian authority and directed that arrangements be made for the child's transfer there. The children's guardian appealed.

Mostyn J had correctly applied the three principles from Art 15 but erred when he introduced a consideration of the domestic judgment of M v M (Stay of Proceedings: Return of Children) [2005] EWHC 1159 (Fam) [2006] 1 FLR 138. The construction of Art 15 had to be uniform throughout the courts of the Member States. It could not be dominated by a domestic law approach in cases brought under the domestic jurisdiction, whether it was statutory or inherent. The context of the issue before Wilson J and the law that he was applying were radically different to the determination of Art 15, which was hardly in being when he was sitting in the domestic case. The Article was transparently clear. The court could not request a transfer unless so to do would be in the best interests of the child. 

It had been demonstrated that the judge misdirected himself but this was a very minor aberration from the straight and narrow, and the judge would have arrived at precisely the same conclusion had he directed himself correctly and not imported into the search for the autonomous law of the Regulation, observations made by Wilson J in a domestic case some years earlier. It was unrealistic to remit the case for a fresh hearing. Appeal dismissed.


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