Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child lost his Australian habitual residence upon leaving that State for the parents had agreed that the child should relocate to the United Kingdom. Consequently the child was not wrongfully retained in Scotland once the mother changed her mind about the relocation.

Human Rights - Art. 20

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the children objected to a return, but in exercising its subsequent discretion the court found that there was simply so much in dispute and so much that required resolution that the appropriate forum for the substantive custody proceedings was South Africa.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the court found the father had a right of veto over the removal of the child from the jurisdiction and given that he was exercising his access rights it was ruled that he would have exercised this custodial right had it not been for the unilateral nature of the removal. Consequently the removal of the child was wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal had breached rights of custody held by the father and the mother had failed to show that the father had consented to the removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States of America on the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no express agreement that the child would return to the United States of America on 29 December 2012.

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

Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in New Zealand on the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal of the children was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful for the children had neither lost their Israeli habitual residence at the relevant date nor acquired a habitual residence in Australia. There was no grave risk of harm and whilst the father had at one stage consented to the relocation the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion to make a return order.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful as it was rendered without knowledge of the father's right to custody.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; a grave risk of harm had not been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to a mirror order being obtained in the Netherlands; the retention was wrongful and the allegation that the applicant father had consented had not been proved.