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
- 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.