CL v AL

The court found no inadequacy or inconsistency in its previous reasoning regarding habitual residence and jurisdiction. The alleged fresh evidence did not meet the threshold for reconsideration, and the welfare best interests of the children required prompt implementation of the arrangements for JL to return to the UK and live with IL and the father.

Parties: Applicant: CL; Respondent: AL; Interested Party: Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 August 2017
Procedural Posture: Family / Post Judgment Review and Fresh Evidence Application
Outcome: Application to admit fresh evidence refused; permission to appeal denied; stay of order denied.
Legal Topics: Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Child Welfare, Fresh Evidence, Appeal Permission

Family Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Child Welfare Fresh Evidence Appeal Permission

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Children’s Guardian

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Family / Post Judgment Review and Fresh Evidence Application

Legal Issues

1 Adequacy and consistency of reasons for jurisdiction and habitual residence
2 Admission of fresh evidence post-judgment
3 Welfare best interests of children

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to admit fresh evidence refused; permission to appeal denied; stay of order denied.

Orders

Mother to surrender custody of JL by 9am local Australian time unless parents agree otherwise in writing.
Expedited transcript of judgment at public expense.