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...
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from