Family Law Hub

A (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) [2009] EUECJ C-523/07

Judgment, published: 02/04/2009

Items referring to this

  • M's appeal where the issue was whether the High Court of England and Wales had jurisdiction to order the 'return' to this country of a small child who had never been present here on the basis that he was habitually resident here or that he had British nationality. Appeal allowed, the SC holding that the court had inherent jurisdiction to make the orders in this case on the basis of the child's British nationality. The case was however remitted to the judge to consider as a matter of urgency whether it was appropriate to exercise this exceptional jurisdiction. Judgment, 10/09/2013, free
  • This case concerned the habitual residence of two children who were born and raised in France. The mother moved to Scotland with the children with the agreement of the father, who remained in France. The intention was that the mother and children would stay in Scotland for about a year. The relationship broke down while she was still in Scotland. The issue at stake was whether the children were habitually resident in Scotland (as contended by the mother) or France (as contended by the father). The Outer House of the Court of Session concluded that the children were still habitually resident in France. The Inner House reversed that decision and ruled that they were habitually resident in Scotland. The father appealed. The important consideration for the Supreme Court was whether the residence had the necessary quality of stability, not whether it was necessarily intended to be permanent. They ruled that the children were habitually resident in Scotland. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • Appeal against a decision that the child was not habitually resident in the UK at the time Children Act proceedings were started because she had lost her habitual residence in this country upon her departure with the respondent for Pakistan, albeit that, in the judge's view, she had probably not yet acquired a habitual residence in Pakistan. The judge also declined to exercise the inherent jurisdiction saying that the facts of the present case did not justify such a course. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • Father's application for the return of the child to Spain after the mother had wrongfully removed him to the UK. The 'disastrous state of affairs' had resulted in the child being taken into care when the mother returned to Brazil and found herself unable to return to the UK. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
  • Judgment, 08/08/2012, free
  • Case note, 31/08/2012, members only
  • The father was seeking a child arrangements order, a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order. He subsequently issued an application for a return order. The purpose of this hearing was to determine a preliminary issue concerning the jurisdiction of the English court to adjudicate upon the father's applications, that issue hinging on the court's determination of whether the child was habitually resident in England. Judgment, 14/07/2016, free
  • The issue for consideration in this appeal are what remedies are available to the parent whose child is removed from the country of habitual residence pursuant to a return order made on a successful application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention which is subsequently set aside by an appellate court. Judgment, 24/07/2013, free
  • The court ruled that it did have jurisdiction in relation to proceedings issued by the mother under the inherent jurisdiction concerning two children where the mother alleged that the father had removed their passports thus preventing them from returning to the UK from the UAE. Judgment, 16/08/2017, free
  • Case note, 10/10/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 22/06/2012, free
  • The majority held that the child, who had been taken to Pakistan, had not lost her habitual residence and therefore the appellant's application under the 1989 Act can and should proceed to substantive determination by the High Court. Judgment, 03/02/2016, free
  • Father's appeal against a court ruling that the child was habitually resident in Finland and therefore the UK court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the father's applications in relation to the child. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • Case note, 24/08/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • In the words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson, this is "another example of the painful legal confusion that can arise when children are born as a result of unregulated artificial conception". The present applications arose from a same-sex relationship between Ms L and Ms C. Ms C gave birth to a child after artificial insemination and soon afterwards took the child to Ireland after their relationship broke down. Ms L had not seen the child since and was applying for a residence and contact order, and for declarations that at the point of the child's departure from England, Ms L was acting as her 'psychological parent'. It was held first that the court had no jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility concerning the child. Secondly, the court made a declaration that, at the date of the child's removal from England, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between the child and Ms L Judgment, 06/05/2014, free
  • Judgment concerning habitual residence of a child involving a mother in the UK and a father in Singapore, where the father claimed the mother's consent in removing the child. The judge found that the child had not acquired habitual residence in Singapore and ordered return with a penal notice attached. Judgment, 03/04/2014, free
  • After considering issues in relation to service, an order was made for the child to return to the UK from Spain in the short term so that CAFCASS could make an assessment which would inform the court before a final decision on where the child should live could be made. Judgment, 03/05/2018, free
  • The child was the subject of proceedings in England and Spain. The English court had declared that she was habitually resident in the UK and made other consequential directions. The Spanish court had refused to return her to this jurisdiction pursuant to the Hague Convention. M's application was to set aside declarations made by the English Court as to (i) habitual residence (ii) wrongful retention. Alternatively she invited the court to reassess habitual residence as at today's date. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Judgment, 19/03/2013, free
  • Habitual residence under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised Case note, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 29/10/2012, free

Published: 02/04/2009


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item