LA v ML & Ors

LA v ML & Ors

The court found the child was habitually resident in England at the time proceedings commenced, based on the settled intention of the mother and child to reside in the UK, the lack of objection from the biological father, and the integration of the child into English life. Therefore, the English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 BIIR. The court declined to transfer proceedings to Slovakia at this stage, holding that fact-finding regarding the child's injuries should occur in England where the evidence is available and delay would be minimal. The Article 15 transfer application is adjourned until after the fact-finding hearing.

Parties
Applicant: LA; 1st Respondent: ML; 2nd Respondent: MQ; 3rd Respondent: SP; 4th Respondent: MP; Intervenor: The Centre for the International Protection of Children and Youth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (family Law) / Jurisdictional Determination and Interim Directions
Outcome
Jurisdiction found in favour of the English court; Article 15 transfer application adjourned.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised (biir), Habitual Residence of a Child, Article 15 Transfer to Another Member State, Interim Care Orders, Child Welfare and Protection
Family Law International Private Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised (biir) Habitual Residence of a Child Article 15 Transfer to Another Member State Interim Care Orders Child Welfare and Protection

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LA

Applicant

ML

1st Respondent

MQ

2nd Respondent

SP

3rd Respondent

MP

4th Respondent

The Centre for the International Protection of Children and Youth

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (family Law) / Jurisdictional Determination and Interim Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the child under BIIR
  2. 2 Whether the child was habitually resident in England at the time proceedings commenced
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be transferred to Slovakia under Article 15 BIIR

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the child was habitually resident in England at the time proceedings commenced, based on the settled intention of the mother and child to reside in the UK, the lack of objection from the biological father, and the integration of the child into English life. Therefore, the English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 BIIR. The court declined to transfer proceedings to Slovakia at this stage, holding that fact-finding regarding the child's injuries should occur in England where the evidence is available and delay would be minimal. The Article 15 transfer application is adjourned until after the fact-finding hearing.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction found in favour of the English court; Article 15 transfer application adjourned.

Orders

  • Directions for a fact-finding hearing in England within two weeks
  • Adjournment of the Article 15 transfer application until after the fact-finding hearing