Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

FORUM: Re N (Jurisdiction) [2007] EWHC 1274 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : re-n-jurisdiction-2007-ewhc-1274-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 24, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88875

(Family Division; Hedley J; 24 May 2007)

The parties were British citizens who married and lived in the UK with their child, before moving to France. The marriage broke down and the father remained in France while the mother and child returned to the UK. The child subsequently went to stay for a holiday with the father in France. The father did not return the child.

The French court found that there had been an unlawful retention under Art 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention) but declined to order a return under Art 13(b) on the basis of the child's wishes. Divorce proceedings were subsequently commenced by the mother in the UK and the father in France.

The questions for the court were: whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings under Art 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2203 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (2003) OJ L 338/1 (the Regulation); whether it was first seised of the case under Art 19 of the Regulation; and if so, whether it should either stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens or give directions as to the conduct of the divorce and/or proceedings under Children Act 1989. If the court did not have jurisdiction and/or was not first seised of the case, should it give directions under Art 11(7) of the Regulation?

The wife was able to bring the petition within Art 3 of the Regulation: the husband was unable to demonstrate with the strict cogency required that he had acquired a domicile of choice in France and therefore retained his domicile of origin, England and Wales. On the evidence the French court was the court first seised of the matter. The proceedings in the Family Division would therefore be stayed. The stay would be reviewed if a return order was made in the Hague Convention proceedings. Directions would be given in respect of the mother's Art 11(7) application but no steps would be taken without a further court order until her appeal against the French non-return order had been determined. A CAFCASS child and family reporter would be appointed to report on the child's wishes and feelings and understanding of the issues involved, but the child would not be made a party at this stage.

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