header-logo header-logo

20 September 2013
Issue: 7576 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family

Re A (children) (jurisdiction: return of child) [2013] UKSC 60, [2013] All ER (D) 66 (Sep)

Jurisdiction under Art 8 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (Brussels II) depended upon where the child was habitually resident. An approach which held that presence was a necessary pre-cursor to residence and thus habitual residence was one which accorded most closely with the factual situation of the child. However, it could not be said that that was acte claire for the purpose of EU law. Article 14 of the Regulation applied where no court of a member state had jurisdiction under Arts 8 to 13. Where no other member state was involved, either the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction under Art 8 or no court of a member state did so. In that case, the jurisdiction of England and Wales was determined by the laws of England and Wales.  

 

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

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll