header-logo header-logo

30 September 2016
Issue: 7716 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Family , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

Re L (a child) (jurisdiction) [2016] EWCA Civ 821, [2016] All ER (D) 67 (Sep)

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal would be allowed in a case where the father of a child, A, appealed against final orders which an English court had made in relation to the care of A. In the circumstances, the English court had had no jurisdiction to make final orders, because there had not been a valid request made under Art 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 to transfer jurisdiction from the French court and, without such a request, there had been no basis for the English court to have exercised substantive jurisdiction in relation to A.

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll