header-logo header-logo

13 January 2012 / Simon Blain
Issue: 7496 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Presence v residence

Are we edging towards a single, universally applicable, “test” of habitual residence? Simon Blain reports

“Where does my client live?” That is one of those apparently simple questions that family lawyers face on a regular basis, which turn out to have far from simple answers.

Three recent cases bring some welcome clarity to this fascinating area of the law, although we are still some way from having a single, universally applicable, “test” of habitual residence. The test remains different, depending on whether or not one is dealing with a European case to which Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II Revised) applies.

Relevant factors

On a referral from the Court of Appeal the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked to clarify the appropriate test for determining the habitual residence of a child for the purposes of Arts 8 and 10 of Brussels II Revised (Mercredi v Chaffe [2010] EU ECJ C – 497/10).

The mother was born on the French Indian Ocean island of Réunion and is French. The father is British.

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll