Mercredi v Chaffe

Mercredi v Chaffe

The English court was wrong to assert continuing welfare jurisdiction and make further orders after the French court was properly seised and had begun welfare proceedings. Even if jurisdiction existed, the English court should have considered and exercised its discretion to transfer the case to France under Article 15, as the French court was better placed to determine the child's welfare. The orders below were set aside except as to parental responsibility for the father.

Parties
Appellant Mother: Barbara Mercredi; Respondent Father: Richard Chaffe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Parental Responsibility and Child Abduction) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders below set aside except as to parental responsibility for the father.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised, Habitual Residence, Child Abduction, Parental Responsibility, Comity Between Courts, Article 15 Transfer, Lis Pendens
Family Law Private International Law Child Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised Habitual Residence Child Abduction Parental Responsibility Comity Between Courts +2 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Mercredi

Appellant Mother

Richard Chaffe

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Parental Responsibility and Child Abduction) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to make orders regarding Chloé under Brussels II Revised
  2. 2 Whether the orders made by McFarlane J were correct in law and discretion
  3. 3 Whether the case was one of lawful removal or child abduction

Ratio Decidendi

The English court was wrong to assert continuing welfare jurisdiction and make further orders after the French court was properly seised and had begun welfare proceedings. Even if jurisdiction existed, the English court should have considered and exercised its discretion to transfer the case to France under Article 15, as the French court was better placed to determine the child's welfare. The orders below were set aside except as to parental responsibility for the father.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders below set aside except as to parental responsibility for the father.

Orders

  • Order of McFarlane J set aside except for grant of parental responsibility to the father.
  • Jurisdiction over welfare matters to be exercised by the French courts.