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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
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