ZZ v AA

The children were habitually resident in England and Wales at the time of the application, and the court has jurisdiction under both the 1996 Hague Convention and the Family Law Act 1986. India is not a clearly more appropriate forum; England and Wales is the proper forum for determination of the dispute.

Parties: Applicant: ZZ; Respondent: AA
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 06 November 2024
Procedural Posture: Family / Jurisdiction and Forum Conveniens Determination
Outcome: Jurisdiction affirmed; stay application refused; directions given for disclosure and provision of judgment to Indian court; matter listed for determination of return order.
Legal Topics: Habitual Residence, Forum Conveniens, Child Welfare, Jurisdiction, Inherent Jurisdiction, Children Act 1989, Family Law Act 1986

Family Law International Child Law Habitual Residence Forum Conveniens Child Welfare Jurisdiction Inherent Jurisdiction Children Act 1989 +1 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Jurisdiction and Forum Conveniens Determination

Legal Issues

1 Does the court have jurisdiction to entertain the application for return of the children?
2 Is England and Wales the appropriate forum for determination of the dispute between the parents?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction affirmed; stay application refused; directions given for disclosure and provision of judgment to Indian court; matter listed for determination of return order.

Orders

Declaration that the children were habitually resident in England and Wales at the time of the application.
Refusal of stay application based on forum conveniens.