Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: H v M (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2005] EWCA Civ 976

Sep 29, 2018, 16:34 PM
Slug : h-v-m-abduction-rights-of-custody-2005-ewca-civ-976
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 28, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85519

Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Dyson and Lloyd LJJ; 28 July 2005) [2005] 2 FLR 1119

The New Zealand courts were asked, with the agreement of the parties and English judge, to determine a father's rights in relation to a child, and whether the removal of the child was wrongful under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention"), Art 15. The New Zealand courts ruled in favour of the father and found that the child had been wrongfully removed from New Zealand by the mother. In the English courts Singer J subsequently dismissed the father's Hague Convention application. Dismissing the father's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a request under the Hague Convention is not appropriate where the issue to be decided by the other State's court turns on a point of autonomous law, such as the Hague Convention. An Art 15 determination made in another State is not binding upon the English courts, following Re J (A Minor) [1990] 2 AC 562. In any case involving the construction or interpretation of the Articles of the Convention, the answer is to be found in international jurisprudence of the contracting States. The New Zealand courts concluded that contact arrangements may amount to rights of custody under the Hague Convention, Art 5 but the English authorities differ and there is no general support among the contracting States for the New Zealand stance, following Re V-B (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192 and Re P (Abduction: Consent) [2004] EWCA Civ 971, [2004] 2 FLR 1057.

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