Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Louisa Gothard
Louisa Gothard
Senior Solicitor, Head of Family Law
Read on
JA v TH [2016] EWHC 2535 (Fam)
Date:25 OCT 2016
Third slide
Law Reporter

(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
Family Law Reports
Family Law Reports
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of...
£509.99
Family Law
Family Law
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with...
£389
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2019 edition due out in May
£559.99