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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

ABDUCTION/CONFLICT OF LAWS: Re M (Abduction: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWCA Civ 630

Sep 29, 2018, 16:24 PM
Slug : re-m-abduction-brussels-ii-revised-2006-ewca-civ-630
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 18, 2006, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85139

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wall LJJ; 18 May 2006)

The judge's conclusions that the 14-year old child objected to returning to France and that he was a child of sufficient age and maturity were not open to challenge. However, the judge had erred in his exercise of the resulting discretion not to return the child; he should not have taken into account welfare considerations which had arisen only because of delays within the English system, particularly given the countervailing welfare concerns about the father's parenting abilities. The judge had also been wrong to give significant weight to the child's misconceived perception that he would not receive a fair hearing in France.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels II Revised Regulation) had fortified what were seen as weaknesses or loopholes in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention) system, through which abductors were escaping, in three ways: (i) an emphasis on protective measures to nullify an Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention defence; (ii) the return of the case to the requesting state in the event of a refusal by the requested state; and (iii) automatic enforcement of return orders throughout the region.

It was important that states bound by the Brussels II Revised Regulation did not undermine its intended effect either in its interpretation or in its application in accordance with the stringent time limits stipulated, in particular the 6 weeks allowed between the lodging of an application and the issue of judgment in the case. The Good Practice Guide published by the European Commission did not have the force of law, but it remained an extremely useful tool for judges and practitioners who approached the Brussel II Revised Regulation without much previous experience. Hague Convention abduction applications which fell within the ambit of the Brussels II Revised Regulation should be headed both under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and under the Brussels II Revised Regulation. On issue the outside of the court file should be clearly marked to draw attention to the nature of the application. It should also state the date on which the 6-week period would expire in order to draw the attention of the court administration to the hear-by date which stringent compliance with the Brussels II Revised Regulation would require. Although compliance with the stringent requirements of the Brussels II Revised Regulation would generally require the removal of a previously fixed case from the list, the UK, having opted in to the Brussels II Revised Regulation, was bound by it. If not delivering a written judgment the trial judge must expedite the transcript of the extempore judgment and then expedite its approval.

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