Mercredi v Chaffe [2011] EWCA Civ 272 (17 March 2011)

Mercredi v Chaffe [2011] EWCA Civ 272 (17 March 2011)

The English court was wrong to assert welfare jurisdiction and make continuing orders, as by the relevant date Chloé was habitually resident in France and the French court was first seised. Even if jurisdiction existed, the judge should have exercised discretion to transfer the case to France under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised, as the French court was better placed to determine welfare issues.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 272
Parties
Appellant Mother: Barbara Mercredi; Respondent Father: Richard Chaffe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order below set aside.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Child Abduction, Brussels II Revised, Hague Convention
Family Law International Law Child Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Child Abduction Brussels II Revised +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Mercredi

Appellant Mother

Richard Chaffe

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the English court have jurisdiction to make orders regarding Chloé?
  2. 2 Was the exercise of discretion by the judge in making those orders plainly wrong?
  3. 3 Should jurisdiction be transferred to the French courts under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised?

Ratio Decidendi

The English court was wrong to assert welfare jurisdiction and make continuing orders, as by the relevant date Chloé was habitually resident in France and the French court was first seised. Even if jurisdiction existed, the judge should have exercised discretion to transfer the case to France under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised, as the French court was better placed to determine welfare issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order below set aside.

Orders

  • Order of McFarlane J set aside
  • Jurisdiction over parental responsibility matters transferred to French courts