header-logo header-logo

19 February 2016
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Re D (A Child) (International Recognition) [2016] EWCA Civ 12, [2016] All ER (D) 221 (Jan)

The Court of Appeal dismissed a father’s appeal against the mother’s successful appeal against recognition and enforcement of an order obtained in Romania regarding their child, who was habitually resident in England. It was both a welfare and fundamental principle whether a child was to be heard and the question to be determined by the court, by reference to the child’s age and understanding, was “whether and if so how was the child to be heard”. As the child in the present case had not been given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings, the judge had been correct to refuse recognition and enforcement of its order pursuant to Art 23(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll