Case Bank
Search 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention Cases
Loading filters and latest case entries. Please hold on while we fetch the database.
Loading search filters and cases…
Loading search filters and cases…
Case Bank
Loading filters and latest case entries. Please hold on while we fetch the database.
Loading search filters and cases…
Loading search filters and cases…Case Bank
Search criteria may be entered into any or all of the fields. Each record contains a concise abstract, classification data, and a link to the text of the judgment where available.
Showing 31 to 40 of 54 cases
| Action | H96-CB Ref | Court | Country | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H96-2022-000001 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 19 Dec 2022 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000006 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 21 Dec 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000008 | Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) | Australia | 26 Oct 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000003 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 15 Jul 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000002 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 23 Jun 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000001 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), King's Bench Division, Administrative Court | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 12 Apr 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000005 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 25 Mar 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000004 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 10 Mar 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2021-000007 | High Court of Justice (Northern Ireland), Family Division | United Kingdom - Northern Ireland | 19 Feb 2021 | First instance | |
| H96-2020-000001 | Cour de cassation (France), Première chambre civile | France | 30 Sept 2020 | Supreme / Highest Court |
The proceedings concerned two children who had moved with their family from England to Spain approximately one year before one child sustained a serious stab injury while the family was visiting England. The local authority commenced care proceedings, and the parents challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts on the basis that the children were habitually resident in Spain. The principal issue was whether habitual residence under Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention should be determined at the date the court was seised or at the date of the hearing. Lieven J disagreed with MacDonald J's earlier decision in London Borough of Hackney v P, holding that jurisdiction should be determined when proceedings are commenced. On that basis, the children remained habitually resident in Spain and the English court's jurisdiction was limited to urgent protective measures under Article 11. However, because the alleged injury occurred in England and all relevant witnesses and evidence were located there, the court concluded that England was better placed to determine the factual issues and directed that a request be made under Article 9 inviting the Spanish authorities to authorise the English courts to exercise jurisdiction.
The father wrongfully abducted his 20-month-old daughter from England and Wales to Switzerland by private aircraft without the mother's knowledge or consent. The mother's application under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was refused by the Swiss courts on the basis of Article 13(1)(b). The father subsequently sought to transfer the English proceedings to Switzerland under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. That application was dismissed by Arbuthnot J because jurisdiction under Article 7 remained with England and Wales and the statutory conditions for transfer were not satisfied. At the final welfare hearing, Hayden J reaffirmed the importance of the Article 7 jurisdictional scheme, criticised the delay caused by the father's transfer application, and held that the child's welfare required her return to the mother's care in England and Wales.
The case concerned two children habitually resident in Australia who had inherited interests in real property located in France under a will governed by German law. French law required judicial authorisation before the property could be sold on the children’s behalf. After the German Family Court declined jurisdiction on the basis that the competent court was in Australia, where the children were habitually resident, the parents applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for property protection measures under Australia’s implementation of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The court held that Australia had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 5 because the children were habitually resident there. Referring to Articles 1, 3 and 15 of the Convention, the court appointed the parents as guardians of the children’s property, authorised the sale of the children’s interests in the French property, and directed that the proceeds be held on trust for the children in accordance with Queensland trust law.
The proceedings concerned a two-year-old child habitually resident in Switzerland who had been placed in long-term foster care after his mother's arrest. The local authority initially sought a transfer of jurisdiction under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention but later applied to withdraw that request. The Children's Guardian instead invited the High Court to request a transfer limited to issues concerning contact between the child and his adopted sibling living in England. Mrs Justice Knowles undertook a detailed analysis of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, the jurisdictional framework, the relationship with Article 8 ECHR, and the principles of mutual trust and international judicial cooperation. Although the court accepted that England and Wales had a substantial connection with the child and that the proposed request fell within the Convention, it concluded that the Swiss authorities possessed an adequate legal framework to determine issues relating to DNA testing, sibling contact and the child's welfare. Since a transfer would provide no genuine or specific added value and would create practical and procedural difficulties, the court declined to make an Article 9 request and allowed the proceedings to be withdrawn.
The Child and Family Agency of Ireland sought the acceptance by the English courts of a transfer request made by the District Court in Dublin under Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The proceedings concerned an infant born in Ireland whose parents had longstanding involvement with English child protection authorities and who had travelled to Ireland shortly before the child's birth. The Irish court concluded that England and Wales had a substantial connection with the child and was better placed to determine his long-term welfare. Keehan J reviewed the authorities on Article 15 of Brussels IIa, including Re LM and In the Matter of HJ, and held that there were no material differences between Article 15 and Article 8 of the 1996 Convention. Adopting the same procedural approach, the court accepted the transfer request, holding that the child's best interests required the proceedings to continue in England and Wales, where the relevant evidence, family history and potential placement options were located.
The case concerned a mother and her four children, all British citizens living abroad in Country X. The three eldest children had lived in Country X throughout their lives. Their father, a national of Country X, had allegedly subjected the mother and children to serious domestic abuse. HM Passport Office refused to process the children’s passport applications without the father’s consent, on the basis that, under the law of the children’s habitual residence, the father had sole parental responsibility. The mother had left Country X, leaving the children with their grandparents, but later returned with her fourth child in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain the father’s consent. The Administrative Court held that Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention designated the law of the children’s habitual residence as the applicable law governing parental responsibility. However, on the facts, applying the law of Country X would be manifestly contrary to public policy under Article 22, taking into account the children’s best interests. The court further held that applying a rule requiring the father’s consent would amount to direct sex discrimination against the mother, contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8.
The parents, both Russian nationals, had commenced competing proceedings in England and Russia concerning their children. Following an earlier ruling that Article 13 would apply if the Russian court accepted jurisdiction, the Russian court subsequently determined that it had jurisdiction and made substantive orders concerning the children's residence. The issue before Holman J was the effect of that decision on the English proceedings. The court held that it should abstain from exercising substantive jurisdiction under Article 13 and rejected the father's argument that Article 11 justified further intervention. The judgment provides useful guidance on the procedural operation of Article 13 and the distinction between abstention and a formal stay of proceedings.
Following the wrongful removal of a child from England to Switzerland by her father, the father sought a transfer of proceedings to Switzerland under Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The case required the court to determine the relationship between Articles 7 and 8 and whether the transfer mechanism could operate where jurisdiction was retained by the State of the child's habitual residence following an abduction. Arbuthnot J held that Article 7 preserves the jurisdiction of the State of the child's habitual residence until the conditions specified in Article 7(1)(a) or (b) are satisfied. Because Article 8 expressly refers only to jurisdiction exercised under Articles 5 and 6, it could not be used to transfer jurisdiction in a case governed by Article 7. The court declined to follow examples in the HCCH Practical Handbook suggesting a broader interpretation and instead relied on the text of the Convention and the Lagarde Explanatory Report. The judgment also contains an important discussion of the relationship between Brussels IIa and the 1996 Convention in transfers involving non-EU Contracting States.
This case involved a father residing in Australia who sought to re-establish direct and indirect contact with his children in Northern Ireland. The father invoked Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention and Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The court considered the appropriate jurisdictional and procedural framework, including whether the matter should be remitted to another court for a formal contact application under domestic law. Keegan J adopted a pragmatic approach, noting that the jurisdictional issue appeared to have arisen for the first time in Northern Ireland and that the procedural complexities were not of the father’s making.
Following the parents' separation, divorce proceedings were commenced in France. Although the children were habitually resident in France when the proceedings began, they subsequently moved lawfully to Switzerland, where they became habitually resident. The Lyon Court of Appeal retained jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues by relying on Article 8 Brussels IIa. The Cour de cassation held that, because Switzerland was not an EU Member State, the relationship was governed by the 1996 Hague Convention. Applying Article 5(2), it concluded that jurisdiction had transferred to the Swiss authorities following the lawful change of habitual residence and that the French courts were no longer competent to determine parental responsibility matters.