Eliassen & Anor v Eliassen & Anor

Eliassen & Anor v Eliassen & Anor

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge correctly applied the law by interpreting Article 13(b) restrictively, focusing on the immediate risk to the child and not conducting a full welfare enquiry. The Strasbourg jurisprudence, including Neulinger, does not require a change to the established approach under the Hague Convention. The necessary protective measures were in place or would be in place on return. There is no separate defence under Article 20 beyond compliance with ECHR rights. The judge's decision was fair, clear, and in accordance with both domestic and international law.

Parties
Appellant: Kerry Ann Eliassen; Appellant: Tyler Baldock; Respondent: Stig Eliassen; Intervener: Reunite; Intervener: The AIRE Centre
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Child Abduction) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Article 13(b) Defence, Best Interests of the Child, European Convention on Human Rights (echr), Article 8 ECHR, Article 20 Hague Convention
Family Law International Law Human Rights Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Article 13(b) Defence Best Interests of the Child European Convention on Human Rights (echr) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerry Ann Eliassen

Appellant

Tyler Baldock

Appellant

Stig Eliassen

Respondent

Reunite

Intervener

The AIRE Centre

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Child Abduction) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the mother's Article 13(b) defence under the Hague Convention without necessary safeguards in place
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to apply the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Neulinger v Switzerland and related Strasbourg jurisprudence
  3. 3 Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 creates a separate defence under Article 20 of the Hague Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge correctly applied the law by interpreting Article 13(b) restrictively, focusing on the immediate risk to the child and not conducting a full welfare enquiry. The Strasbourg jurisprudence, including Neulinger, does not require a change to the established approach under the Hague Convention. The necessary protective measures were in place or would be in place on return. There is no separate defence under Article 20 beyond compliance with ECHR rights. The judge's decision was fair, clear, and in accordance with both domestic and international law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; return order for the children to Norway stands
  • No change to the trial judge's orders