M v M [2011] NICA 36 (14 July 2011)

M v M [2011] NICA 36 (14 July 2011)

The trial judge was entitled to prefer the respondent's evidence that the family emigrated to Australia with the intention of permanent residence, and the children became habitually resident in Australia. The retention of the children in Northern Ireland was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, and the Hague Convention mechanism was properly invoked. There was no error in law or fact justifying appellate intervention.

Citation
[2011] NICA 36
Parties
Appellant / Respondent: M; Respondent / Applicant: M
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention, Wrongful Retention, Custody
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Habitual Residence Hague Convention Wrongful Retention Custody

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant / Respondent

M

Respondent / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether the retention of the children in Northern Ireland was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether the Hague Convention mechanism was properly invoked in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to prefer the respondent's evidence that the family emigrated to Australia with the intention of permanent residence, and the children became habitually resident in Australia. The retention of the children in Northern Ireland was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, and the Hague Convention mechanism was properly invoked. There was no error in law or fact justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Stephens J affirmed
  • Return order for the children to Australia to be implemented after a 28-day period for arrangements