I-L (Children) (1996 Hague Child Protection Convention : Inherent Jurisdiction)

I-L (Children) (1996 Hague Child Protection Convention : Inherent Jurisdiction)

The children remained habitually resident in Russia at the relevant date; the father's actions did not amount to a repudiatory retention; and the English court could not exercise inherent jurisdiction to order the return of the children to Russia because the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention applied and Russia was already seized of the case and in a position to make effective orders.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Family Division
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as to habitual residence and repudiatory retention; order under inherent jurisdiction set aside.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Child Abduction, Inherent Jurisdiction, International Conventions, Jurisdiction Under Hague Conventions
Family Law International Child Law Habitual Residence Child Abduction Inherent Jurisdiction International Conventions Jurisdiction Under Hague Conventions

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in Russia or England at the relevant date
  2. 2 Whether the father's actions amounted to a repudiatory and wrongful retention under the 1980 Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether the English court could exercise inherent jurisdiction to order the return of the children to Russia in light of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The children remained habitually resident in Russia at the relevant date; the father's actions did not amount to a repudiatory retention; and the English court could not exercise inherent jurisdiction to order the return of the children to Russia because the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention applied and Russia was already seized of the case and in a position to make effective orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as to habitual residence and repudiatory retention; order under inherent jurisdiction set aside.

Orders

  • The judge's order under the inherent jurisdiction requiring return of the children to Russia is set aside.
  • The mother's application to enforce the Russian court's order should proceed.