Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings given; the standard of proof required under Article 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Sweden on the relevant date.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the mother's removal was wrongful but she had subsequently been awarded custody.

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

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; first instance decision overturned on procedural grounds.

Procedural Matters

Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) was not established.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal as the Convention had not entered into effect between the United Kingdom and Ontario at the relevant date.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly taken into account the High Court judgment to refuse a return order.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Challenge dismissed; the Cour d'Appel had been correct in finding that none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children had lost their Israeli habitual residence by the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld; the retention was wrongful the child being habitually resident in France at the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Hague Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused. The Father failed to established that he had rights of custody. Should this finding be wrong the Mother and Guardian established that the children objected to return within the meaning of the Article 13 exception and the Court would exercise their discretion not to order a return. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Mother’s assertions established the potential existence of a grave risk but this could be addressed and sufficiently ameliorated through protective measures. Furthermore, though W objected to returning and had attained an age and maturity at which it was appropriate to take into account his views, other factors outweighed these objections.