SP (Father) v EB (Mother) & Anor (Rev 1)

SP (Father) v EB (Mother) & Anor (Rev 1)

The prolonged delay, KP's strong settlement and habitual residence in England, the father's total inaction in pursuing welfare proceedings in Malta, and the likelihood of grave harm or intolerability if KP were returned, together with the violation of her right to family life, establish valid defences under Article 13(2), Article 13(b), and Article 20. The application for return is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: SP (Father); 1st Respondent: EB (Mother); 2nd Respondent: KP (Through her guardian Mr John Power)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment and Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for return dismissed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, EU Regulation No. 2201/2003 (b2 R), Habitual Residence, Article 8 ECHR, Article 7 CFREU, Article 13 and 20 Hague Convention, Discretion in Return Orders
Family Law International Child Abduction Human Rights Hague Convention 1980 Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 EU Regulation No. 2201/2003 (b2 R) Habitual Residence Article 8 ECHR +3 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 8 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SP (Father)

Applicant

EB (Mother)

1st Respondent

KP (Through her guardian Mr John Power)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment and Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child KP should be returned to Malta under Article 12 of the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether defences under Article 13(2), Article 13(b), and Article 20 are established
  3. 3 Impact of delay and father's inaction on the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The prolonged delay, KP's strong settlement and habitual residence in England, the father's total inaction in pursuing welfare proceedings in Malta, and the likelihood of grave harm or intolerability if KP were returned, together with the violation of her right to family life, establish valid defences under Article 13(2), Article 13(b), and Article 20. The application for return is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for return dismissed; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Father's application for return of KP to Malta is dismissed.
  • Application for permission to appeal is refused.