V (a child), Re

V (a child), Re

The judge was entitled to find that M’s wishes and reasons were insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in Brussels II that he should be returned to Hungary; concerns about the Hungarian courts’ speed are not grounds to refuse return.

Parties
Appellant: Mr V; Respondent: Mrs V
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Abduction / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Custody, Brussels II Regulation, Hague Convention
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Custody Brussels II Regulation Hague Convention

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr V

Appellant

Mrs V

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Abduction / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child M should be returned to Hungary under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and Brussels II Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the child's wishes and human rights override the presumption of return
  3. 3 Whether concerns about the speed of the Hungarian courts are relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that M’s wishes and reasons were insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in Brussels II that he should be returned to Hungary; concerns about the Hungarian courts’ speed are not grounds to refuse return.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Child to be returned to Hungary