El Sayed v Secretary for Justice [2003] 1 NZLR 349
Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Secretary for Justice v. Penney, ex parte Calabro [1995] NZFLR 827
Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(2) had been made out with respect to the two older children, while the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out with respect to the youngest child.
Secretary of Justice v. D., transcript, District Court of New Zealand at Auckland
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father’s rights of custody.
S. v. S. [1999] NZFLR 625
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and it was questionable whether the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out. In any event, the children were of sufficient age and maturity and they were clear in their view that they wished to return to Australia.
Secretary for Justice v. Abrahams, ex parte Brown
Return ordered; although the children objected to a return there was evidence of external pressure and the court exercised its discretion to make a return order, finding that the appropriate forum for a substantive custody hearing was South Africa.
Gross v. Boda [1995] NZFLR 49
Appeal allowed on the basis that there had been a breach of custody rights and case remitted to the District Court for the making of a return order and any appropriate incidental orders.
X. (the mother) against De directie Preventie, en namens Y. (the father) (14 april 2000, ELRO nr. AA 5524, Zaaksnr.R99/076HR)
Challenge to legality dismissed; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the return was therefore ordered.
A.A.A. v. A.S.H. (Registrar General for England and Wales and the Secretary for Justice) [2009] EWHC 636 (Fam.)
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed36657
X. (Stichting Bureau Jeugdzorg {BJA}) against Y. (the mother) (14 April 2000, ELRO nr: AA5523 Zaaknr.R99/111HR)
Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as the rights possessed by the BJA did not amount to rights of custody. The application was therefore rejected.
Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, 29 octobre 1992, R?f?r? No 1895/92
