EUPillar Joelle Vigreux v Patrick Jacques Robert Michel, Pierre-Mathieu Bernard Rene Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630

Summary

These were proceedings for a return of child abducted by his father from his mother. The child was 14 years old. The habitual residence of the child was in France. In August 2005, the child escaped with his father to England. The child clearly wanted to stay with his father. The French Central Authority was seised on the 26th August 2005; the papers were forwarded to the English Central Authority on the 16th September 2005. The English court proceedings were commenced on 23rd September 2005. On 15th February 2006, Mr Justice McFarlane, sitting at the English High Court, refused the mother’s application by holding: “I am satisfied in this case that Pierre's wishes and feelings should prevail. I am impressed by the mature manner in which he has conducted himself as a party to these proceedings, and indeed during the hearing. That stance and what he says about what he wants and what he feels deserves respect and requires the court to give that aspect of the case considerable weight so that, allied with the education and disruption issues, it outweighs on this occasion the policy of the Convention. The balance therefore comes down in favour of a refusal of the mother's application for a return to France” [55] quoted by Lord Justice Thorpe [31]. The mother appealed. The case reached the Court of Appeal on 1st March 2006. On 18th May 2006, the Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s appeal, and ordered the return of the child to France. Lord Justice Wall held: “ I have come to the conclusion that the judge was plainly wrong to exercise his discretion to refuse a return of Pierre-Mathieu to France. In reaching that conclusion, however, I would like to make it very clear that I have considerable sympathy for the difficult situation in which the judge found himself. A case which raised a number of sensitive issues, including the unchartered territory of Brussels II Revised had already been grossly delayed, and required an immediate decision. Unlike the procedure in this court, the judge did not have the luxury of reserving judgment. He allowed himself only a period of overnight reflection before he gave judgment. In these circumstances, I would, without affectation, like to congratulate him on the clarity and humanity of his judgment. A thoroughly respectable case could be made out for dismissing this appeal: indeed, when I first read the papers, my instinctive reaction was that the judge was to be supported. Further reflection, however, a privilege not allowed the judge, coupled with skilful argument in this court, has led me to the clear view that his decision was wrong.” [76]. In the Court of Appeal, it was further noted that: “85 It is, accordingly, with a sense of both shock and dismay that I find the chronology in the instant case revealing that the proceedings under the Hague Convention which were launched by the mother on 23 September 2005 were not heard by McFarlane J until 13 February 2006, his judgment being given promptly on 15 February 2006 after overnight reflection following the end of the two day hearing on 14 February. There was no question in this case of the child's whereabouts being unknown, or any other reasons for the delay other than unavailability of court space and judicial time. That the proceedings took nearly 5 months to be heard is both shocking and unacceptable.” [85]