CX (Jurisdiction: Wrongful Removal to Northern Cyprus) [2025] EWFC 27 (18 February 2025)

CX (Jurisdiction: Wrongful Removal to Northern Cyprus) [2025] EWFC 27 (18 February 2025)

The English court retains jurisdiction over both the s8 and inherent jurisdiction proceedings because CX was habitually resident in England and Wales at the date of each application, and subsequent change of habitual residence to a non-Contracting State (TRNC) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction under domestic law. The s8 proceedings are dismissed as serving no ongoing purpose; the inherent jurisdiction proceedings are stayed generally to be restored if CX returns to the jurisdiction.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 27
Parties
Applicant: AZ; First Respondent: BY; Second Respondent: CX (A child by his Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 S8 Proceedings and Inherent Jurisdiction (wardship) / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Case Management
Outcome
s8 proceedings dismissed; inherent jurisdiction proceedings stayed generally to be restored on return of CX to the jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Wrongful Removal, Wardship, Children Act 1989 S8 Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Family Law Act 1986
Family Law Private International Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Wrongful Removal Wardship Children Act 1989 S8 Orders Inherent Jurisdiction +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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZ

Applicant

BY

First Respondent

CX (A child by his Children's Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 S8 Proceedings and Inherent Jurisdiction (wardship) / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court retains jurisdiction over a child wrongfully removed to Northern Cyprus (a non-Contracting State)
  2. 2 Whether habitual residence was lost prior to the issue of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether jurisdiction is lost if habitual residence changes to a non-Contracting State during proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The English court retains jurisdiction over both the s8 and inherent jurisdiction proceedings because CX was habitually resident in England and Wales at the date of each application, and subsequent change of habitual residence to a non-Contracting State (TRNC) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction under domestic law. The s8 proceedings are dismissed as serving no ongoing purpose; the inherent jurisdiction proceedings are stayed generally to be restored if CX returns to the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

s8 proceedings dismissed; inherent jurisdiction proceedings stayed generally to be restored on return of CX to the jurisdiction

Orders

  • The s8 application is dismissed as there are no issues that can now or in the foreseeable future be determined and continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose.
  • The inherent jurisdiction (wardship) proceedings are stayed generally, to be restored within seven days of CX returning to the jurisdiction, with liberty to apply.