Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had never acquired a habitual residence in Belgium.

Habitual Residence - 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 children were habitually resident in Israel at the time of the retention and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but on the basis of the children's objections a return order was refused.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the level of risk required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and 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) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal did not breach any rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was actually exercising his rights of custody and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed: the trial judges had not considered whether, under Article 3, the children had acquired a habitual residence in Australia.

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention in light of the intervening custody order made by the authorities in the State of the children's habitual residence.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.

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

Return ordered

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

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.