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

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