W v W (minor) (mirror order) [2011] EWCA Civ 703, [2011] All ER (D) 188 (Jun)
One of the imperatives of international family law was to ensure that there was only one jurisdiction, amongst a number of possible candidates, to exercise discretionary power at any one time. Obviously comity demanded resolute restraint to avoid conflict between states. That was the realistic aim of Conventions and Regulations in that field. Another realistic aim was to provide protective measures to safeguard children in transit from one jurisdiction to another or to ensure their return at the conclusion of a planned visit. Protective measures took the form of undertakings, mirror orders and safe harbour orders.
A litigant who sought a mirror order was manifestly not accepting the jurisdiction of the ancillary state to do any more than to reiterate the provisions of the primary jurisdiction. For the purposes of Art 12(3), “jurisdiction” had to mean primary jurisdiction to exercise judgment and to issue orders according to the paramount welfare discretion. An application for a mirror order, by definition, could not supplant the primary jurisdiction.
