Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court ordered the return of three children to England from Dubai under its inherent jurisdiction, finding their welfare required return.
The court held that A was habitually resident in India on 17 October 2025, so it lacked jurisdiction. The wardship and summary return applications were dismissed.
Article 13(b) grave risk exception is not satisfied; the court confidently discounts risk of intolerable situation for C upon return, especially given Ohio Family Court's welfare determination and proposed protective measures. C's objections are noted but carry limited weight due to age, maturity, and influence by mother. Discretion exercised in favour of return, subject to undertakings ensuring 'soft landing' and minimising risk of maternal incarceration or immediate separation.
Source excerpt
C (A Child), Re (Abduction: Grave Risk: Asylum Claim: Child's Objections) [2025] EWHC 3461 (Fam) (17 December 2025)
The High Court ordered C’s return to Ohio under the Hague Convention, rejecting grave risk and child objections arguments, with return protected by undertakings.
A was habitually resident in Pakistan, was wrongfully removed without the mother's knowledge or consent, and his welfare requires his summary return to Pakistan; the father and paternal grandmother deceived the mother and failed to promote contact; the mother is capable of meeting A's needs and his emotional welfare is best served by return.
Source excerpt
KN v KR [2025] EWHC 2338 (Fam) (28 August 2025)
Hague Convention return application concerning a child removed from Australia to the UK. The court ordered return to Australia, rejecting the Article 13(b) defence on the basis of protective measures.
The judge’s findings regarding physical and emotional abuse were rationally supportable, based on the evidence and proper evaluation of credibility and inconsistencies. The appellate court found no error of law, misunderstanding, or failure to consider relevant evidence, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal upheld a summary return order sending two children back to Nigeria, holding the judge’s welfare analysis supported return despite errors about habitual residence.
Z (A Child), Re [2025] EWCA Civ 594 (07 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a father’s appeal against fact-finding findings of physical and emotional abuse in child proceedings, but deleted one unsupported finding from the order.
It is not in the child's best interests to be summarily returned to China for welfare decisions to be taken there, given the lack of evidence about the parents' respective abilities, the inability of the Chinese courts to enforce cross-border contact or permit relocation, and the need for a full welfare investigation in England.
Source excerpt
Explore more
