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 51 to 54 of 54 cases
| Action | H96-CB Ref | Court | Country | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H96-2014-000003 | Family Court of Australia | Australia | 15 May 2014 | First instance | |
| H96-2014-000002 | High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division | United Kingdom - England and Wales | 30 Apr 2014 | First instance | |
| H96-2013-000001 | Family Court of Australia | Australia | 15 Nov 2013 | First instance | |
| H96-2013-000002 | Cour de cassation (France), Première chambre civile | France | 20 Mar 2013 | Supreme / Highest Court |
This case concerned an Australian child who had lived first in Western Asia and then in Switzerland with her father following the parents' separation. The mother commenced proceedings in Australia seeking parenting orders, property adjustment, and spousal maintenance. The child was found to be habitually resident in Switzerland. The central issue was whether the Australian court could nevertheless exercise jurisdiction under the provisions implementing Article 10 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The court undertook a detailed analysis of Article 10, the Lagarde Explanatory Report, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Family Law Act provisions implementing the Convention. It held that Article 10 and s 111CD should be interpreted broadly. In particular, the phrase "proceedings concerning the divorce or separation of the child's parents" was held to encompass not only formal divorce proceedings but also related matrimonial proceedings, including property settlement and spousal maintenance applications arising from relationship breakdown. The court therefore concluded that the requirements of Article 10 were satisfied notwithstanding the child's habitual residence in Switzerland. Although the court found that the statutory preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction were met, it ultimately stayed the parenting proceedings.
The case concerned an application for the registration for enforcement in England and Wales of an Australian consent order relating to a child’s relocation and post-relocation contact arrangements. The application was brought under the 1996 Hague Convention. The court considered the operation of Chapter IV of the Convention and the procedure governing recognition and registration in England and Wales. The judgment contains detailed guidance on the interaction between the Convention, domestic procedural rules and the requirement that registration procedures under the Convention be “simple and rapid”.
The proceedings concerned a child living in the Netherlands with her father. The applicant, a relative of the child's deceased mother residing in Australia, sought parenting orders enabling the child to maintain a relationship with members of her maternal family. The Family Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under Australia's implementation of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The court found that the child was habitually resident in the Netherlands, a Contracting State, and that jurisdiction therefore rested with the Dutch authorities pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention. The court further considered whether a request should be made under Article 9 for the transfer of jurisdiction from the Netherlands to Australia. Although the child had substantial connections with Australia, the court was not satisfied that Australian authorities were better placed than the Dutch authorities to determine the child's best interests. The request for transfer was refused and the proceedings were dismissed.
The case concerned a Swiss couple. Following their separation, a Swiss court approved an agreement in 2004 establishing the father's contribution to their daughter's education. The mother subsequently moved to France with the child, and the father brought proceedings before a French court seeking a modification of the maintenance payments and the organisation of his contact and residence rights. Despite the mother's challenge to jurisdiction, the French court adopted several measures concerning the child, including provisional arrangements relating to the father’s contact rights, and affirmed its jurisdiction, in a ruling dated 9 March 2010. After appealing the French court’s jurisdiction, the mother returned to Switzerland on 1 September 2010, claiming that, pursuant to the 1996 Hague Convention, jurisdiction had shifted to the Swiss courts following the change in the child’s habitual residence. The Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated 19 April 2011, dismissed this argument, holding that the measures taken by the French court predated the Convention’s entry into force in France on 1 February 2011 and were therefore not subject to its provisions. The mother appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the initial measures had not become final and that, under the Convention, jurisdiction lies with the authorities of the State of the child’s new habitual residence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the 1996 Hague Convention, pursuant to Article 53(1), applies only to measures taken after its entry into force. Since the French courts had already adopted measures concerning the child before 1 February 2011, the mother could not rely on the Convention to challenge French jurisdiction. The fact that she had transferred the child’s residence to Switzerland during the proceedings did not alter this conclusion. The Court therefore confirmed that the French courts retained jurisdiction and upheld the decisions concerning the father’s contact and residence rights.