Re W. (A Child) [2004] EWCA Civ 1366
Appeal dismissed; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention, however, the return was subject to extensive and stringent conditions, including the obtaining of a mirror order in the High Court of South Africa.
Re S. (Children) (Abduction: Asylum Appeal) [2002] EWCA Civ 843
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; it was in the children’s best interests to return and this was not prevented by UK immigration rules applicable to asylum applicants.
Re G. and A. (Abduction: Consent) [2003] NIFam 16
Removal wrongful but return refused; consent had been established in accordance with the terms of Article 13(1)(a).
Re C. (Abduction: Settlement) (No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938
Return refused; the child was settled in her new environment and the court exercised its discretion not to make a return order.
Re L. (Abduction: Pending Criminal Proceedings) [1999] 1 FLR 433
Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Re C. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145
Appeal allowed, retention wrongful and return ordered; the very high standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.
Re V.-B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192
Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; there had not been a breach of actually exercised rights of custody.
Re M. and J. (Abduction) (International Judicial Collaboration) [1999] 3 FCR 721
Voluntary return with undertakings agreed between the parties in the requesting State following direct contact between the English judge seized of the return application and the Californian judges seized of the substantive custody and criminal aspects of the case.
Re J. (Children) (Abduction: Child’s Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428
Appeal allowed and return refused; the child was of a sufficient age and maturity for his objections to be taken into account. The younger child should not be separated from his older sibling.
S. v. S., 2003 SLT 344
Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was actually exercising his rights of custody and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
