M (Nationality Based Jurisdiction), Re

M (Nationality Based Jurisdiction), Re

The court found compelling evidence that M, a British citizen habitually resident in Somalia, faced grave and potentially fatal risks due to his apostacy, including threats from family and community, and risk of abusive detention. Somalia lacked effective child protection mechanisms. The court exercised its protective jurisdiction based on nationality, continued and varied the return order to direct it at the parents, and exceptionally withheld service of the order until after M's return, prioritizing M's welfare and Art 2/3 rights over enforceability and parental notice.

Parties
Applicant: M; First Respondent: U; Second Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Wardship / Summary Return Under Inherent Jurisdiction / Post Return, Judgment on Continuation and Variation of Return Order
Outcome
Return order continued and varied; wardship continued; proceedings to continue without notice; return order to be served on parents after implementation.
Legal Topics
Nationality Based Jurisdiction, Summary Return Orders, Without Notice Applications, Child Welfare, Enforceability of Orders, Freedom of Religion, Article 2 and 3 ECHR Rights
Family Law International Child Protection Human Rights Nationality Based Jurisdiction Summary Return Orders Without Notice Applications Child Welfare Enforceability of Orders +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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

U

First Respondent

S

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship / Summary Return Under Inherent Jurisdiction / Post Return, Judgment on Continuation and Variation of Return Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should continue and vary the summary return order for M under nationality-based jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should continue without notice to the parents
  3. 3 Whether the return order should be served on the parents before or after implementation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found compelling evidence that M, a British citizen habitually resident in Somalia, faced grave and potentially fatal risks due to his apostacy, including threats from family and community, and risk of abusive detention. Somalia lacked effective child protection mechanisms. The court exercised its protective jurisdiction based on nationality, continued and varied the return order to direct it at the parents, and exceptionally withheld service of the order until after M's return, prioritizing M's welfare and Art 2/3 rights over enforceability and parental notice.

Court Disposition

Return order continued and varied; wardship continued; proceedings to continue without notice; return order to be served on parents after implementation.

Orders

  • M to be returned to England and Wales forthwith; order directed at parents; wardship continued; proceedings and return order to be served on parents after M's return; liberty to apply to set aside order after service.