N (Children), Re

Case [2016] UKSC 15


Easter Term

[2016] UKSC 15

On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 1112

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

In the matter of N (Children)

 

 

before

 

Lord Neuberger, President

Lady Hale, Deputy President

Lord Kerr

Lord Wilson

Lord Carnwath

 

 

 

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

 

 

13 April 2016

 

 

Heard on 17 March 2016

 

 

 

Appellants

(JN and EN)

Henry Setright QC

Martha Cover

Michael Gration

(Instructed by Hanne & Co)

 

Respondent (London Borough of Hounslow)

Roger McCarthy QC

Mark Twomey

(Instructed by London Borough of Hounslow)

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent (AM - Mother)

William Tyler QC

Malcolm MacDonald

(Instructed by Lawrence & Co Solicitors)

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent (ZN - Father)

Frank Feehan QC

Dorian Day

(Instructed by Hecht Montgomery)

 

Interveners (Written Submissions Only)

 

 

 

1st Intervener (AIRE Centre)

Deirdre Fottrell QC

Lucy Sprinz

Michael Edwards

(Instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP)

 

 

 

 

 

2nd Intervener (Family Rights Group)

John Vater QC

Edward Devereux

Mehvish Chaudhry

Dr Rob George

(Instructed by Goodman Ray LLP)

 

 

 

 

 

3rd Intervener (The International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice)

David Williams QC

Jacqueline Renton

(Instructed by Kingsley Napley)

 

 


LADY HALE: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath agree)

1.                   The issue in this case is whether the future of two little girls, one now aged four years and two months and the other now aged two years and 11 months, should be decided by the courts of this country or by the authorities in Hungary. Both children were born in England and have lived all their lives here. But their parents are Hungarian and the children are nationals of Hungary, not the United Kingdom. Under article 8.1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, known as the Brussels II revised Regulation (“the Regulation”), the primary rule is that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the member state where the child is habitually resident. That would be England in this case. However, an exception is made by article 15, under which those courts can transfer the case to a court in another member state with which the child has a particular connection, if that court would be “better placed” to hear the case, or part of it, and the transfer is in the best interests of the child. These children have a particular connection with Hungary, as it is the place of their nationality. The issue, therefore, is the proper approach to deciding whether a Hungarian court would be better placed to hear the case and to whether transferring it would be in the best interests of the children.

2.                   The context in which these questions arise is important. Free movement of workers and their families within the European Union has led to many children living, permanently or temporarily, in countries of which they are not nationals. Inevitably, some of them will come to the attention of the child protection authorities, because of ill-treatment or neglect or the risk of it. In the past, the courts in this country might assume that…

Continue reading N (Children), Re

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
Case
[2016] UKSC 15
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.