C v D (Jurisdiction Based on Nationality)

C v D (Jurisdiction Based on Nationality)

The English High Court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction based on nationality to make a return order, wardship order, declaration, or anti-suit injunction in respect of a child habitually resident in the United States where the US courts are seised of welfare proceedings, there is no cogent evidence of incompetence, lack of independence, or corruption in the US courts, and the child is not beyond all judicial oversight. The 1980 Hague Convention does not apply as there was no wrongful removal or retention. The father's dissatisfaction with US proceedings and inability to afford counsel do not justify intervention.

Parties
Applicant: C; Respondent: D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Jurisdiction/wardship / Judgment on Applications for Return Order, Wardship, Declaration, and Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Based on Nationality, Wardship, Hague Convention 1980, Comity, Declaratory Relief, Anti Suit Injunctions
Family Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Based on Nationality Wardship Hague Convention 1980 Comity Declaratory Relief Anti Suit Injunctions

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Jurisdiction/wardship / Judgment on Applications for Return Order, Wardship, Declaration, and Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English High Court should exercise jurisdiction over a child habitually resident in the United States based on nationality
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a return order, wardship order, declaration, or anti-suit injunction in respect of the child

Ratio Decidendi

The English High Court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction based on nationality to make a return order, wardship order, declaration, or anti-suit injunction in respect of a child habitually resident in the United States where the US courts are seised of welfare proceedings, there is no cogent evidence of incompetence, lack of independence, or corruption in the US courts, and the child is not beyond all judicial oversight. The 1980 Hague Convention does not apply as there was no wrongful removal or retention. The father's dissatisfaction with US proceedings and inability to afford counsel do not justify intervention.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • All applications by the father for a return order, wardship, declaration, and anti-suit injunction are dismissed.