NCC v L & Anor.
The child is not habitually resident in England and Wales; therefore, the English court lacks jurisdiction. Even if jurisdiction existed, Article 15 supports transfer to Latvia as the court best placed to determine the child's welfare.
- Parties
- Applicant: NCC; Respondent: L; Respondent: Child, by his Children's Guardian
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 July 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Care Proceedings / Jurisdiction Determination
- Outcome
- Jurisdiction declined; proceedings to be transferred to Latvia.
- Legal Topics
- Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Transfer of Proceedings, Best Interests of the Child
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NCC
Applicant
L
Respondent
Child, by his Children's Guardian
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Jurisdiction Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the child E is habitually resident in England and Wales
- 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the care proceedings
- 3 Whether proceedings should be transferred to Latvia under Article 15
Ratio Decidendi
The child is not habitually resident in England and Wales; therefore, the English court lacks jurisdiction. Even if jurisdiction existed, Article 15 supports transfer to Latvia as the court best placed to determine the child's welfare.
Court Disposition
Jurisdiction declined; proceedings to be transferred to Latvia.
Orders
- Request made under Article 15 for Latvian court to take over proceedings
- No further delay to be permitted in the transfer
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment