KRM v VWT

KRM v VWT

The Article 13(b) exception was not established because, with the offered and enforceable protective measures, the elder children would not be at grave risk of harm if returned to Australia, whether accompanied by Mother or not. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction to order Lois's summary return exists but should not be exercised without further evidence and a CAFCASS report; thus, the Lois application is adjourned. The court retains jurisdiction to order interim contact until the return order is implemented.

Parties
Applicant: KRM; Respondent: VWT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law (child Abduction, Summary Return, Inherent Jurisdiction) / Final Judgment on Hague Convention Application and Interim Determination on Inherent Jurisdiction Application
Outcome
Return order for elder children to Australia granted; Lois application adjourned; interim contact order made.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Summary Return Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Protective Measures, Domestic Abuse Allegations, Habitual Residence, Child Welfare, Interim Contact
Family Law International Child Abduction Private International Law Hague Convention 1980 Summary Return Orders Inherent Jurisdiction Protective Measures Domestic Abuse Allegations +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KRM

Applicant

VWT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law (child Abduction, Summary Return, Inherent Jurisdiction) / Final Judgment on Hague Convention Application and Interim Determination on Inherent Jurisdiction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Article 13(b) exception to summary return under the Hague Convention is established for the elder children
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order the summary 'return' of Lois to Australia
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order interim contact after a return order is made

Ratio Decidendi

The Article 13(b) exception was not established because, with the offered and enforceable protective measures, the elder children would not be at grave risk of harm if returned to Australia, whether accompanied by Mother or not. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction to order Lois's summary return exists but should not be exercised without further evidence and a CAFCASS report; thus, the Lois application is adjourned. The court retains jurisdiction to order interim contact until the return order is implemented.

Court Disposition

Return order for elder children to Australia granted; Lois application adjourned; interim contact order made.

Orders

  • Elder children to be returned to Australia within 14 days after registration of mirror order there.
  • Determination of the Lois application adjourned pending further evidence and CAFCASS report.