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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

JA v TH [2016] EWHC 2535 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:31 PM
Jurisdiction – Hague Convention 1996 – Non-EU State – Application for transfer of proceedings
The court held that contact proceedings in relation to both children should be transferred to the English court.
Slug : ja-v-th-2016-ewhc-2535-fam
Meta Title : JA v TH [2016] EWHC 2535 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Jurisdiction – Hague Convention 1996 – Non-EU State – Application for transfer of proceedings
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 25, 2016, 08:46 AM
Article ID : 113249

(Family Division, Baker J, 14 October 2016)

Jurisdiction – Hague Convention 1996 – Non-EU State – Application for transfer of proceedings

The court held that contact proceedings in relation to both children should be transferred to the English court.

The Norwegian mother and English father had two children, aged 10 and 8. When the parents separated the mother sought to take both children to live in Norway. At a dispute resolution hearing the parents agreed that the mother could take the younger child to Norway while the older child would remain with the father in the UK and an agreed schedule of contact was drawn up. An order was made to that effect.

Contact did not take place according to the schedule and each parent blamed the other for that being the case. When the mother initiated proceedings in Norway in respect of the younger child the father applied under Art 15 of BIIR for a transfer of those proceedings to the English court. However, since Norway is not a member of the EU, the provisions of BIIR did not apply. An application was later made for transfer under Arts 8 and 9 of the Hague Convention 1996. The mother cross-applied for a transfer to Norway.

Due to the result of the EU referendum, it was possible that the provisions of BIIR would cease to apply and, therefore, that the 1996 Hague Convention would acquire greater prominence.

The court had jurisdiction to submit a request under Art 9 of the Hague Convention 1996 due to the child being a UK national and having a substantial connection with this country. Both the English and Norwegian courts were well placed to determine the issue of contact, however, it was manifestly in the younger child’s interests for a determination to be made by the same court as that engaged with determining the older child’s contact arrangements. Both sets of proceedings would be heard by the English court to ensure consistent orders. The International Family Justice Office would be contacted to facilitate the request to the Norwegian court.


This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: PL15P00970

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2535 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
AND IN THE FAMILY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE 1996 HAGUE CONVENTION
AND IN THE MATTER OF M AND L (CHILDREN)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 14/10/2016

Before:


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BAKER


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Between:


JA
Applicant


- and -


TH
Respondent


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Lucy Reed (instructed by Kitsons) for the Applicant father
The Respondent mother appeared in person


Hearing dates: 30th August 2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment

JA v TH [2016] EWHC 2535 (Fam).rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Jurisdiction
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from