Cases Archive

The Court of Appeal provides definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa, the Vienna Convention and domestic adoption jurisprudence. The Latvian Ministry of Justice intervened in the appeal in opposition to the Local Authority and in support of the mother. The mother’s appeal was dismissed.  Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority.

Consideration of jurisdiction to make public law orders in respect of a child. Cobb J found jurisdiction of necessity.

Appeal by a mother against an order that her daughter be returned to Lithuania. Appeal dismissed.

Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority in an application, made by the mother, for permission to oppose an adoption.  The mother, supported by the Latvian authorities, applied for a transfer of the proceedings to the Latvian court under Art 15 Brussels II Revised, permission to oppose the adoption and contact.  All three applications were refused by Moylan J

Father’s application for the summary return of his son to Australia. Application granted.

The issue for determination was whether a consent order providing for temporary leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction was final and brought proceedings to an end. The Court of Appeal held that this question should be determined as things stood at the time the order was made and could not depend on what happened next in the family’s life or even on what would be a sensible and practical way of going about things. Appeal dismissed.

The mother appealed against registration and enforcement of a French order granting sole residence to the father. Consideration of the effect of Article 23(c) of Brussels II Revised when French service rules complied with and Annex II certificate granted but actual service had not been effected. Appeal allowed.

Whether an Order dealing with temporary removal from the jurisdiction was a final order concerning matters of parental responsibility within the meaning and understanding of Brussels II Revised.