E v D (Child: Transfer of Proceedings Art. 9 of Hague Convention 1996)

E v D (Child: Transfer of Proceedings Art. 9 of Hague Convention 1996)

The court found that it was not satisfied that the courts of England and Wales are better placed to hear the case. While delay in Malta is regrettable, there is no evidence that proceedings there cannot be resolved expeditiously, and the speculative prospect of a quicker resolution in England and Wales does not justify transfer under Article 9.

Parties
Applicant Father: E; Respondent Mother: D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Child Welfare / Transfer of Proceedings / Judgment on Article 9 Hague Convention 1996 Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Hague Convention 1996, Transfer of Child Proceedings, Child Welfare, Delay in Foreign Proceedings
Family Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Under Hague Convention 1996 Transfer of Child Proceedings Child Welfare Delay in Foreign Proceedings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Applicant Father

D

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Child Welfare / Transfer of Proceedings / Judgment on Article 9 Hague Convention 1996 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the courts of England and Wales are better placed to assess the welfare of the child under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be transferred from Malta to England and Wales

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it was not satisfied that the courts of England and Wales are better placed to hear the case. While delay in Malta is regrettable, there is no evidence that proceedings there cannot be resolved expeditiously, and the speculative prospect of a quicker resolution in England and Wales does not justify transfer under Article 9.

Court Disposition

application dismissed