JK (Return Order Under Inherent Jurisdiction) [2025] EWCA Civ 1309 (17 October 2025)

JK (Return Order Under Inherent Jurisdiction) [2025] EWCA Civ 1309 (17 October 2025)

The appeal is dismissed because the circumstances are sufficiently compelling to require the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to order the return of the child, JK, to England and Wales for her protection, given the absence of parental responsibility in Thailand, the risks posed by the parents, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1309
Parties
Child: JK; Appellant's Counsel: Matthew Rees KC; Appellant's Counsel: Callum Brook; First Respondent's Counsel: Kate Burnell KC; First Respondent's Counsel: Nicola Brown; Second Respondent's Counsel: Karl Rowley KC; Second Respondent's Counsel: Nicholas Sefton; Third Respondent's Counsel: Ruth Kirby KC; Third Respondent's Counsel: Jonathan Rustin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Return Order, Jurisdictional Thresholds, Child Welfare, Public Law Proceedings
Family Law International Child Protection Inherent Jurisdiction Return Order Jurisdictional Thresholds Child Welfare Public Law Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JK

Child

Matthew Rees KC

Appellant's Counsel

Callum Brook

Appellant's Counsel

Kate Burnell KC

First Respondent's Counsel

Nicola Brown

First Respondent's Counsel

Karl Rowley KC

Second Respondent's Counsel

Nicholas Sefton

Second Respondent's Counsel

Ruth Kirby KC

Third Respondent's Counsel

Jonathan Rustin

Third Respondent's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order the return of a British child from a non-Contracting State when not habitually resident in England and Wales
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in this case cuts across the statutory scheme of the Family Law Act 1986 and Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether circumstances are sufficiently compelling to justify the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the circumstances are sufficiently compelling to require the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to order the return of the child, JK, to England and Wales for her protection, given the absence of parental responsibility in Thailand, the risks posed by the parents, and the lack of any other statutory route to secure her welfare.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • JK remains a ward of court until further order
  • Parents ordered to ensure JK's return to England and Wales by 22 August 2025