D (A Child), Re

Case [2016] UKSC 34


Trinity Term

[2016] UKSC 34

On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 12

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

In the matter of D (A Child)

 

 

before

 

Lord Neuberger, President

Lady Hale, Deputy President

Lord Clarke

Lord Wilson

Lord Hughes

 

 

 

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

 

 

22 June 2016

 

 

Heard on 23 May 2016

 

 

Appellant

(Father)

Richard Harrison QC

Stephen Jarmain

Samantha Ridley

(Instructed by Wedlake Bell Solicitors LLP)

 

1st Respondent

(AA Mother)

James Turner QC

Edward Devereux

(Instructed by Osbornes Solicitors LLP)

 

 

 

 

 

2nd Respondent

(DD Child)

Nicholas Anderson

Katy Chokowry

(Instructed by CAFCASS Legal Services)

 

 

 

1st Intervener( Written submissions only)

(Reunite International Child Abduction Centre)

Henry Setright QC

Michael Gration

(Instructed by Dawson Cornwell)

 

2nd Intervener

(Ministry of Justice)

Hugh Mercer QC

Alistair Mackenzie

(Instructed by The Government Legal Department)

 

 

 

LADY HALE: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes agree)

1.                   On 21 March 2016, this court gave a father permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal that a custody order which he had obtained in Romania should not be enforced in this country under the Brussels II (Revised) Regulation (“BIIR”), because it had been given “without the child having been given an opportunity to be heard, in violation of fundamental principles of procedure” in this country. In the view of the panel giving permission to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeal raised an arguable point of law of general public importance, as to the precise extent to which it is a fundamental principle of the procedure relating to all cases about children in the courts of England and Wales that the child should be given an opportunity to be heard. This is a question of importance in all children’s cases, not just those where the court here is asked to enforce a judgment given in another member state of the European Union.

2.                   However, it has now become clear that under BIIR this court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. This point was not raised by the respondent mother in her notice of objection to the application for permission to appeal. No doubt, had she done so, the court would have listed it for oral argument before deciding whether or not to give permission. In the event, once it was raised, we were able to arrange a hearing at short notice, in advance of the date set for the substantive appeal. As a point of jurisdiction, it could not be ignored, however inconveniently late in the day it was raised. We are grateful to the parties for the speed with which they have prepared their written and oral arguments and, in particular, to the Ministry of Justice, whom we asked to intervene in order to give us an account of the relevant history.

The history of the case

3.                   The circumstances in which this question arises are deeply unfortunate, not least because of the delays there have been, not only in Romania but also in this country, but they are…

Continue reading D (A Child), Re

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
Case
[2016] UKSC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.