header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family

Re MP (a child) (care proceedings: jurisdiction) [2013] EWHC 2062 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 75 (Aug)

The following principles applied with respect to Art 15 of Council Regulation 2201/2003: (i) the burden was upon the person applying to establish that a stay of the proceedings was appropriate; (ii) the applicant had to show, not only that England was not the natural or appropriate forum, but also that the other jurisdiction was clearly the more appropriate forum; (iii) in assessing the appropriateness of each forum, the court had to discern the forum with which the case had the more real and substantial connection in terms of convenience, expense and the availability of witnesses; (iv) if the court were to conclude that the other forum would be clearly more appropriate, it should grant a stay unless other more potent factors were to drive the opposite result; and (v) in the exercise to be conducted at (iv), the welfare of the child was an important, but not a paramount, consideration. The scope of the best interests enquiry did not involve

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll