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
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

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