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
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....
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
View all articles
Authors

RESIDENCE: RAB v MIB [2008] CSIH 52

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : rab-v-mib-2008-csih-52
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 9, 2008, 06:26 AM
Article ID : 88793

(Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session; Lord Eassie, Lady Paton, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon; 9 September 2008)

The couple were habitually resident in Scotland with the child. Without the father's consent the mother took the child to London, where she obtained an ex parte residence order from the English court. The father challenged the order on the basis that the English court had no jurisdiction, but was unsuccessful. The father later began divorce proceedings in Scotland, raising issues concerning the child's residence and future contact arrangements; the mother succeeded in obtaining a stay of those issues from the Scottish court on the basis that Scotland was forum non conveniens.

The test for forum non-conveniens was not the practical convenience of witnesses, but whether the alternative forum contended for was one in which 'the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice'. The jurisdiction of the local Scottish court was established as of right and, as the court of the dissolution of the marriage, it not only had primary jurisdiction in respect of the welfare of the child of the marriage, but also the duty to satisfy itself that the welfare arrangements were appropriate. That jurisdiction could be abdicated only in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

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