1996 Hague Convention

The Court of Appeal has ruled that undertakings are 'measures' within the meaning of Art 11 1996 HC. They can therefore be subject to recognition and registration for enforcement under Article 24-6. The Court of Appeal did not address the issue of how that was to be done in a country which did not recognise undertakings within its own domestic

[2012] 2 FLR 1191 Re C (Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Orders Relating to Child) [2012] EWHC 907 (Fam) FD, Moylan J, 22 March 2012 BIIR – Enforcement – Conflicting opinions of English and Belgian court as to jurisdiction and whether a return order should be made – Lis pendens – Whether the English court was already seised of the matter when the Belgian court made a return order

Protective Measures and expert evidence

Cobb J yesterday considered the issue of evidence about protective measures in an EU case. The Applicant wanted to get info from Central authority and the Respondent wanted info also from lawyer. Cobb J thought the new FPR 25 and PD applied as evidence of law and its application was probably expert evidence. He eventually ordered that the CA evidence be filed (without determining whether that was expert evidence) but would not give permission to rely on a Lithuanian lawyer at that stage and observed that an application could be made pursuant to FPR 25 once the Central Authority evidence was in .

Interestingly there is still no CJEU decision on what 'adequate protective measures' means nor is there a definitive English decision although of course the UKSC said that protective measures need to be effective to ameliorate the Art 13b risk identified.