header-logo header-logo

16 June 2011
Issue: 7470 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Child abduction ruling

Two Norwegian children brought to the UK by their British mother must be returned, the Supreme Court has unanimously held.

In Re E (Children) (FC) [2011] UKSC 361, the court considered, for the first time, the proper interpretation of Art 13(b) of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

Article 13 provides three exceptions to the requirement that a child be returned, including where there is a “grave risk” that the child would be exposed to “physical or psychological harm” or placed in “an intolerable situation”.

The mother argued that this exception applied, alleging that the father was controlling and that she and the children were frightened of him. The court also heard evidence that the mother, who is the children’s primary carer, had a mental disorder which could deteriorate if she returned to Norway.

The father disputed the allegations, although he conceded that he could get angry and had killed family pets. He has given undertakings to vacate the family home and not go within 500 metres of it, and to pay household costs and child support.

Dismissing the mother’s appeal, the court confirmed that the interests of children are a “primary consideration”. It held that an Art 13(1) exception should be interpreted according to its wording and applied without extra interpretation or gloss.

Issue: 7470 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll