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 41 to 50 of 54 cases
| Action | H96-CB Ref | Court | Country | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H96-2020-000002 | Family Court of Australia (Melbourne) | Australia | 14 Jan 2020 | First instance | |
| H96-2018-000001 | Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Dandenong) | Australia | 28 Nov 2018 | First instance | |
| H96-2017-000001 | Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Melbourne) | Australia | 10 Mar 2017 | First instance | |
| H96-2016-000001 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 14 Oct 2016 | First instance | |
| H96-2015-000001 | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom | United Kingdom | 25 Nov 2015 | Supreme / Highest Court | |
| H96-2015-000003 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 30 Jul 2015 | First instance | |
| H96-2015-000002 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 4 Jun 2015 | First instance | |
| H96-2015-000004 | Family Court of Australia | Australia | 11 May 2015 | First instance | |
| H96-2014-000001 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 9 Dec 2014 | First instance | |
| H96-2014-000004 | Cour de cassation (France), Première chambre civile | France | 24 Sept 2014 | Supreme / Highest Court |
The parents and their two children, all ordinarily resident in Australia, travelled to Greece for a family holiday. Shortly before the scheduled return flight, the mother informed the father that she would not return to Australia with the children. The father subsequently commenced proceedings in Australia and sought a recovery order. Bennett J found that the children appeared to have been wrongfully retained in Greece within the meaning of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and considered the relationship between the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions. The court held that Australia had primary jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the 1996 Convention because the children were habitually resident in Australia and that Article 7 preserved Australia's jurisdiction following the wrongful retention. While declining to make an immediate recovery order, the court ordered the children's return to Australia and emphasised that any substantive parenting issues should be determined by the Australian courts. The judgment also discusses the limited jurisdiction of the Greek courts under Articles 11 and 12 and the recognition and enforcement mechanisms in Articles 23 and 26.
The father commenced parenting proceedings after discovering that the mother had taken the parties' infant child to a non-Contracting State and left the child in the care of extended maternal family members. Both parents remained in Australia on temporary visas. The mother argued that the child had become habitually resident in the foreign State and that the Australian court therefore lacked jurisdiction under Part XIIIAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which implements the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The court held that the child had lived in Australia since birth and had been abroad for only a short period when proceedings were commenced. The evidence did not establish that the child's move abroad was intended to be permanent or open-ended. In the absence of clear evidence that the child's habitual residence had changed, the court concluded that the child remained habitually resident in Australia. Australia therefore retained jurisdiction to make parenting orders notwithstanding the child's physical presence in a non-Contracting State.
The case concerned a child who was born in Australia and held Australian citizenship but had been living in India since January 2016. The parents had travelled to India with the child while their marriage was intact and separated shortly afterwards. Both parents later returned separately to Australia, leaving the child in the care of the maternal family in India; the mother subsequently returned to India and remained there with the child. The wife commenced parenting proceedings in Australia. The court accepted that the general jurisdictional requirements in s 69E of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were satisfied, but held that this jurisdiction was constrained by Part XIIIAA, Division 4 of the Act, which implements the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The decisive question was whether the child was habitually resident in Australia. The court found that the move to India was at least potentially open-ended and that the child was habitually resident in India at the relevant times. The Australian court therefore had no jurisdiction to determine parenting matters.
Following the parents' separation, one child remained living in England with the father while the younger child relocated to Norway with the mother. Proceedings concerning contact arrangements were commenced in both countries. The father sought a request under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention so that the English court could determine all issues relating to both children. Baker J held that the jurisdictional preconditions for Article 9 were satisfied because the child was a British national and had a substantial connection with England. Although the English and Norwegian courts were broadly equally competent to determine welfare issues, the court concluded that England was better placed to assess the child's best interests because contact issues concerning the two siblings were inextricably linked and should be determined by a single court. The judgment contains important observations on the operation of Articles 8 and 9, the meaning of the "better placed" test, and the role of judicial cooperation and communication under the Convention.
The case concerned a child wrongfully removed from Morocco to England. Because Morocco's accession to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been accepted by the European Union, the father could not seek the child's return under the 1980 Convention. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the English courts could exercise jurisdiction under Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention to order the child's summary return to Morocco. The Supreme Court held that Article 11 creates a substantive emergency jurisdiction rather than a merely ancillary power comparable to Article 20 of Brussels IIa. Lady Hale emphasised that Article 11 should be interpreted according to its own terms and rejected the Court of Appeal's view that urgency requires proof that it is impossible or impracticable for the authorities of the child's habitual residence to act. The Court recognised that a return order may constitute a "measure of protection" and observed that Article 11 may play an important role in supporting the jurisdiction retained under Article 7 following a wrongful removal. The judgment provides authoritative guidance on the concepts of urgency, necessity and the relationship between Articles 5, 7 and 11.
The case concerned a 15-year-old dual Canadian and Zimbabwean national who had lived an unusually unsettled life across several countries, including South Africa, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Zimbabwe. Following the expiry of his Swiss residence status and his departure from Switzerland, proceedings were commenced in England after allegations of assault by his mother and his placement in foster care. The principal issue was whether the English court possessed substantive jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention. After analysing the child's circumstances, including his immigration status, educational history, social integration and intentions regarding future residence, the court concluded that it was impossible to establish any habitual residence. The court therefore relied on Article 6(2), holding that where a child's habitual residence cannot be established, jurisdiction lies with the authorities of the Contracting State in which the child is present. The decision provides important guidance on the operation of Article 6(2) and on the concept of habitual residence under the Convention.
This case concerned proceedings for the return of two children from England to Austria under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. In determining the application, the High Court considered the interaction between the 1980 Hague Convention, the 1996 Hague Convention, and Brussels II Revised, both Austria and the United Kingdom being Contracting States to the 1996 Convention at the relevant time. The court held that Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention empowered it, as the authority of the State where the children were present, to adopt urgent protective measures pending return. The judgment contains extensive discussion of the role of Article 11 measures and their recognition under Article 23 of the Convention. The court considered that protective measures capable of recognition in Austria could address risks raised in opposition to return and made a series of urgent measures intended to secure the protection and welfare of the children pending determination by the Austrian courts.
This case concerned the scope of the divorce-related jurisdiction under Article 10 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The parties' children had been habitually resident in Spain since 2011. The father commenced proceedings in Australia seeking parenting orders, including the children's return to Australia, while the mother challenged the court's jurisdiction. The principal issue was whether the Australian provisions implementing Article 10 permitted the Australian court to exercise jurisdiction notwithstanding the children's habitual residence in Spain. The court undertook a detailed examination of Article 10, the Lagarde Explanatory Report, the Brussels II Regulation, the Borrás Report, the HCCH Practical Handbook, and academic commentary by Peter Nygh. It emphasised that Article 10 constitutes a limited exception to the Convention's fundamental principle that jurisdiction primarily belongs to the authorities of the child's habitual residence. The court concluded that Article 10 should be interpreted narrowly and is confined to proceedings directly concerning divorce, legal separation, annulment, or the validity of marital status, rather than extending to subsequent parenting or property proceedings arising from relationship breakdown. The court further held that, even if jurisdiction were available, the children's best interests strongly favoured determination of any parenting dispute by the Spanish courts, where the children had been living for several years and where evidence concerning their circumstances could most appropriately be obtained.
The case concerned an application by the mother for recognition and enforcement in England of a Russian custody order determining that one of her children, SG, aged seven, should reside with her. The application was brought under the 1996 Hague Convention following Russia’s ratification of the Convention. The court considered whether recognition should be refused under the Convention because the child had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the Russian proceedings. The judgment contains substantial discussion of child participation and the operation of Article 23(2)(b) in circumstances where a young child capable of expressing views had not been heard.
A Swiss couple married in Switzerland before relocating to France. On 10 October 2007, the wife left the family home in France to settle with the child in Switzerland, where she had retained professional activities and frequently spent extended periods of time. In 2008, she filed for divorce before a Swiss court, which granted the divorce and awarded residential custody of the child to the mother on 28 May 2010. Meanwhile, on 8 February 2010, the husband initiated divorce proceedings before the family court of Créteil (France), seeking both a divorce judgment and the non-recognition in France of the Swiss decision. In a judgment dated 9 April 2013, the Paris Court of Appeal declared the French divorce proceedings moot and dismissed all of the husband's claims. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the 1996 Hague Convention should be applied to refuse recognition of the Swiss judgment in France. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the 1996 Hague Convention applies only to the recognition and enforcement of measures adopted after the Convention has entered into force in both the State of origin and the requested State. As of 28 May 2010 – the date of the Swiss decision – the Convention had not yet entered into force in both Switzerland and France. Accordingly, the Court rejected the husband's argument, which relied entirely on the 1996 Hague Convention to oppose the recognition of the Swiss decision in France.