P and O (Child Abduction: Anticipatory Breach)

P and O (Child Abduction: Anticipatory Breach)

By 28th June 2016, the children had acquired habitual residence in the UK, so their retention in England beyond that date was not wrongful under the Hague Convention, which only applies if the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time.

Parties
Applicant Father: BC; Respondent Mother: JC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction Under the 1980 Hague Convention / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Wrongful Retention, Hague Convention, Parental Consent, Dual Citizenship
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Habitual Residence Wrongful Retention Hague Convention Parental Consent Dual Citizenship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BC

Applicant Father

JC

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction Under the 1980 Hague Convention / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were wrongfully retained in England under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether an anticipatory breach can constitute wrongful retention
  3. 3 Whether the children had acquired habitual residence in the UK by the relevant date

Ratio Decidendi

By 28th June 2016, the children had acquired habitual residence in the UK, so their retention in England beyond that date was not wrongful under the Hague Convention, which only applies if the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The father's application for summary return of the children to Australia is dismissed.