header-logo header-logo

18 November 2022
Issue: 8003 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 18 November 2022

Abduction

Re X (a child) (child abduction: habitual residence) [2022] EWCA Civ 1423, [2022] All ER (D) 10 (Nov)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on the appeal against an order in proceedings brought by a father under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980 for the summary return to Germany of his minor son, X. X’s father and mother had a short relationship. X had lived in Uganda with his mother and the father had lived in Germany. In January 2020, the mother brought X to the UK and in July 2020, she had claimed asylum. Thereafter, the father had filed an application with the Family Division for the summary return of X to Germany. The judge had granted the father’s application on the ground that X was habitually resident in Germany. The mother argued that the judge was wrong to find that X’s habitual residence was Germany. The court held, among other things, that the court found as a fact that the date of retention was July 2021. It was necessary for the court to examine the evidence of integration

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