Bennett v. Bennett [2007] ScotSC 1 (15 January 2007)

Bennett v. Bennett [2007] ScotSC 1 (15 January 2007)

Given that the child and the defender have resided in London for over six years, the English courts are better placed than the Scottish court to determine the child's welfare. The evidence relevant to the child's current and future care is primarily located in London, making the Scottish court forum non conveniens. The sheriff was correct in sustaining the defender's plea and dismissing the pursuer's craves for residence and contact orders.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 1
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Robert Anderson Bennett; Defender and Respondent: Mrs Mona Issa Bennett
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutors Dated 26 July and 4 September 2006
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Residence Order, Contact Order, Jurisdiction Over Child Welfare, Cross Border Child Abduction
Family Law Child Custody Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Residence Order Contact Order Jurisdiction Over Child Welfare Cross Border Child Abduction

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Anderson Bennett

Pursuer and Appellant

Mrs Mona Issa Bennett

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutors Dated 26 July and 4 September 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish court is forum non conveniens for orders under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 regarding residence and contact for the child
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in dismissing the pursuer's craves for residence and contact orders

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the child and the defender have resided in London for over six years, the English courts are better placed than the Scottish court to determine the child's welfare. The evidence relevant to the child's current and future care is primarily located in London, making the Scottish court forum non conveniens. The sheriff was correct in sustaining the defender's plea and dismissing the pursuer's craves for residence and contact orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Sheriff's interlocutors of 26 July and 4 September 2006 adhered to