Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having retained his habitual residence in Germany.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to show that the father had consented to the children living in Finland.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as the rights possessed by the BJA did not amount to rights of custody. The application was therefore rejected.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's custody rights. The standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; while the retention of the children in Germany was wrongful, the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's right of custody.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Israel at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no breach of custody rights.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced had not been met.

Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the High Court for it to exercise its discretion as to whether the child should be returned to England.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal against return order dismissed; the removal was in breach of the father's rights of custody and therefore wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as it was not in breach of any rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had not been a breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of mother and child to Australia.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Legal challenge dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) and Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10