B (A Child)

B (A Child)

The English court was required to declare it had no jurisdiction under Brussels II Revised Regulation Article 17 because M was habitually resident in Sweden when proceedings commenced, and Swedish courts had jurisdiction under Article 8. The absence of extant proceedings in Sweden did not negate Swedish jurisdiction. The judge's reliance on Judicial Network opinions and Article 14 was erroneous.

Parties
Appellant Mother: Miss B; 1st Respondent Local Authority: A local authority; 2nd Respondent Father: M's father; 3rd Respondent Child: M (A child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Ruling on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court's determination on jurisdiction set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Habitual Residence, Parental Responsibility, Brussels II Revised Regulation, Care Proceedings
Family Law International Law Child Protection Jurisdiction Habitual Residence Parental Responsibility Brussels II Revised Regulation Care Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss B

Appellant Mother

A local authority

1st Respondent Local Authority

M's father

2nd Respondent Father

M (A child)

3rd Respondent Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Ruling on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts have jurisdiction over care proceedings concerning a child habitually resident in Sweden under Brussels II Revised Regulation
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of Articles 8, 14, 17, and 20 of Brussels II Revised Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The English court was required to declare it had no jurisdiction under Brussels II Revised Regulation Article 17 because M was habitually resident in Sweden when proceedings commenced, and Swedish courts had jurisdiction under Article 8. The absence of extant proceedings in Sweden did not negate Swedish jurisdiction. The judge's reliance on Judicial Network opinions and Article 14 was erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court's determination on jurisdiction set aside.

Orders

  • Declaration under Brussels II Revised Regulation Article 17 that English courts have no jurisdiction over care proceedings concerning M commenced on 12 September 2012.
  • Existing interim orders, including interim care order, to remain in force until discharged or varied at the forthcoming High Court hearing.