M v U & Anor (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1821 (Fam) (17 July 2025)

M v U & Anor (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1821 (Fam) (17 July 2025)

The court held that the circumstances of M, a British citizen at grave risk of death and inhuman treatment in Somalia due to his apostasy, are sufficiently compelling to require the exercise of the court's inherent protective jurisdiction based on nationality. The court found that giving notice to the parents before...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1821 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: M; First Respondent: U; Second Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Inherent Jurisdiction (wardship/summary Return) / Interlocutory Application for Summary Return Order and Without Notice Proceedings
Outcome
Summary return order continued and varied; proceedings to continue on a without notice basis until after implementation of the order.
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction Based on Nationality, Summary Return of Minors, Without Notice Orders, Article 2 and 3 ECHR Rights, Enforceability of Orders, Parental Responsibility, Religious Freedom and Child Welfare
Family Law International Child Protection Human Rights Inherent Jurisdiction Based on Nationality Summary Return of Minors Without Notice Orders Article 2 and 3 ECHR Rights Enforceability of Orders +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

U

First Respondent

S

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Inherent Jurisdiction (wardship/summary Return) / Interlocutory Application for Summary Return Order and Without Notice Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction based on nationality to order the summary return of a British child from Somalia
  2. 2 Whether the return order should be made and continued on a without notice basis to the parents
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances are sufficiently compelling to justify the court's intervention and interference with parental rights under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circumstances of M, a British citizen at grave risk of death and inhuman treatment in Somalia due to his apostasy, are sufficiently compelling to require the exercise of the court's inherent protective jurisdiction based on nationality. The court found that giving notice to the parents before M's return would likely frustrate the protective purpose of the order and place M at further risk. Therefore, a summary return order is justified and must be made and continued on a without notice basis until after implementation, notwithstanding the interference with parental Article 8 rights, as the protection of M's Article 2 and 3 rights is paramount.

Court Disposition

Summary return order continued and varied; proceedings to continue on a without notice basis until after implementation of the order.

Orders

  • Return order requiring M's parents to facilitate M's return to England and Wales continued and varied to be directed against the parents.
  • Service of the order on the parents to be delayed until after M's return to the jurisdiction.