L (A Child)

L (A Child)

The judge was wrong in concluding that he could not make a contact order in relation to the child in circumstances where she was to live in Corfu, as the child was habitually resident in the UK at the relevant time and the court was seised of the matter.

Parties
Appellant: LD; Respondent: SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of Ground 1; judge had jurisdiction to make a child arrangements order regulating contact.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Private International Law Child Arrangements Order Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LD

Appellant

SL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to make a child arrangements order regulating contact after the child relocated to Corfu

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was wrong in concluding that he could not make a contact order in relation to the child in circumstances where she was to live in Corfu, as the child was habitually resident in the UK at the relevant time and the court was seised of the matter.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of Ground 1; judge had jurisdiction to make a child arrangements order regulating contact.