CX (Jurisdiction: Wrongful Removal to Northern Cyprus), Re

CX (Jurisdiction: Wrongful Removal to Northern Cyprus), Re

The court retains jurisdiction over CX under domestic law because he was habitually resident in England and Wales at the date of both the s8 and inherent jurisdiction applications; jurisdiction is not lost by subsequent change of habitual residence to a non-Contracting State. The s8 proceedings are dismissed as serving no ongoing purpose, and the inherent jurisdiction proceedings are stayed to be restored upon CX's return.

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
Family Law Child Arrangements and Wardship / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Disposition
Outcome
s8 proceedings dismissed; inherent jurisdiction proceedings stayed with liberty to apply upon CX's return
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Wrongful Removal, Inherent Jurisdiction, Children Act 1989 Section 8 Orders, Family Law Act 1986, Parens Patriae, Wardship, Return Orders
Family Law Child Abduction Jurisdiction Habitual Residence Wrongful Removal Inherent Jurisdiction Children Act 1989 Section 8 Orders Family Law Act 1986 +3 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZ

Applicant

BY

First Respondent

CX (A child by his Children’s Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Arrangements and Wardship / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court retains jurisdiction over CX following his wrongful removal to Northern Cyprus
  2. 2 Whether CX's habitual residence changed to TRNC by the time of the inherent jurisdiction application
  3. 3 Whether the court should discharge existing orders and dismiss the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court retains jurisdiction over CX under domestic law because he was habitually resident in England and Wales at the date of both the s8 and inherent jurisdiction applications; jurisdiction is not lost by subsequent change of habitual residence to a non-Contracting State. The s8 proceedings are dismissed as serving no ongoing purpose, and the inherent jurisdiction proceedings are stayed to be restored upon CX's return.

Court Disposition

s8 proceedings dismissed; inherent jurisdiction proceedings stayed with liberty to apply upon CX's return

Orders

  • s8 application dismissed
  • inherent jurisdiction proceedings stayed generally to be restored within seven days of CX returning to England and Wales