A v B

A v B

The English court does not have jurisdiction as the Swedish court is lawfully seized of the matter under Article 19.2 of BIIR. The proceedings in England are stayed, and any further orders or welfare enquiries are for the Swedish court to determine.

Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Family / Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
English proceedings stayed in favour of Swedish jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Child Custody, Brussels II Revised
Family Law International Law Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Child Custody Brussels II Revised

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to entertain the father's applications regarding his daughter under Brussels II Revised (BIIR)
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed under Article 19.2 of BIIR

Ratio Decidendi

The English court does not have jurisdiction as the Swedish court is lawfully seized of the matter under Article 19.2 of BIIR. The proceedings in England are stayed, and any further orders or welfare enquiries are for the Swedish court to determine.

Court Disposition

English proceedings stayed in favour of Swedish jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Both parties have liberty to apply as to implementation and generally.
  • Mother to obtain from Swedish court orders in terms of undertakings proffered.