28 Dec 2023
Because the child returned voluntarily and the court made no order for return or access, Article 26 did not authorise a costs award as a matter of law; in any event, the parties resolved matters and to encourage cooperation the court made no order as to costs, with the applicant's own costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
3 Jun 2021
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the children were habitually resident in France immediately prior to retention, the mother's unilateral retention on 17 February 2021 was wrongful under Article 3, the grave risk exception under Article 13(b) was not made out, the gateway for the children's objections was satisfied but, exercising its discretion and balancing best interests, the court ordered return to France subject to specified protective measures and undertakings; return to occur within 28 days.
11 May 2020
On the evidence the Court was not satisfied that by 8 October 2019 B’s residence in the USA had acquired the necessary degree of stability and integration to constitute a change of habitual residence from Hong Kong to the USA; therefore there was no wrongful retention under the Convention. Alternatively, the father’s signed Note constituted consent that M and B could return to Hong Kong whenever she wished, which would disentitle the father to a return order under Article 13(a).
17 Jan 2020
The court found that the mother and child did not acquire the necessary degree of stability or integration in the USA by 8 October 2019; the mother's purpose in going to the USA on 30 June 2019 was temporary; therefore there was no wrongful retention under Article 3 and, alternatively, the 28 June 2019 Note evidenced consent under Article 13(a) so the return order was refused; the originating summons was dismissed.
4 Jul 2018
Wrongful retention was found to have commenced on 16 January 2017 but by the time proceedings were issued more than one year had elapsed and the child had become settled and habitually resident in Hong Kong; accordingly the Convention no longer mandated return and, applying discretion and having regard to the child’s welfare, return was refused and the originating summons dismissed.
19 Jun 2018
On the facts the court found that the Mother had relocated to the UK and there was sufficient degree of stability and integration in the social and family environment (visa, lease, utilities, NHS registration, substantial shipping, familial support and communications) such that both the Mother and the infant EMB were habitually resident in the United Kingdom immediately before 15 December 2017; therefore the Mother’s retention of EMB in Hong Kong on that date was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.
30 Aug 2017
Applying the child‑centred habitual residence test and weighing integration, reasons for stay, parental conduct and contemporary evidence, the court found the Child's habitual residence remained Hong Kong and therefore refused the Father's Hague Convention application for return.
27 Aug 2015
On the Hague Convention appeal the court concluded the children had, through nearly two years' full-time residence and social integration, acquired habitual residence in Hong Kong so the Convention did not apply; alternatively the judge properly found the children objected to return under Article 13 and it was within discretion to refuse return. On the jurisdiction appeal the court found the Wife had, by reason of the breakdown of the marriage and her conduct and intentions thereafter, formed the intention to reside in Hong Kong for an indefinite period and/or had a substantial connection wit…
27 Aug 2015
On the Hague Convention appeal the Court concluded the children had, on the facts, become habitually resident in Hong Kong and therefore the Convention did not apply; alternatively, even if habitual residence remained in New Jersey, the court found wrongful retention and that the children, being of sufficient age and maturity, objected to return under Article 13 such that the Court properly exercised its discretion to refuse return. On the jurisdiction appeal the Court found the Wife had by April 2014 formed the requisite intention and/or sufficient substantial connection with Hong Kong so th…
8 May 2015
On the facts the court found the parties' original shared intent was a limited 1-2 year temporary move so the children remained habitually resident in New Jersey; the mother's GMO affirmation constituted an act of retention and therefore wrongful under the Convention, but the children expressed clear, mature objections to return and the court, exercising its Article 13 discretion, declined to order immediate return.