PIL instrument(s)
Brussels IIa
Case number and/or case name
Re W (Minors) [2010] EWCA Civ 520
Details of the court
England and Wales, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels IIa
Article 11
Paragraph 2
Article 62
Paragraph 2
Date of the judgement
14 April 2010
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
None
Summary
The main proceedings were in respect of three children who were aged respectively eight, six and three. The mother was British; the father was Irish. They were cohabiting in Ireland, marrying there in 2007. However, the relationship between the parties was not a quite happy one. The mother secretly removed the children from Ireland to England. The wrongful removal took place in June 2009. The same month, the father came to London where the parents tried a period of reconciliation, lasting from September 2009 to 16th November 2009. After their attempt at reconciliation failed, the father returned to Ireland, making an application for the children to return to Ireland. The proceedings were commenced in November 2009. On 4th March 2010, Mrs Justice Black refused the father’s request, taking account of the children’s objections. The permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal. When giving his reasons, Lord Justice Wilson held: “26 My view was (and remains) that the discretionary exercise which fell to be conducted by Black J was difficult for her but that review of her decision was not difficult for Sedley LJ and myself. D and G objected to a return to Ireland and it was appropriate to take account of their views. But, for this purpose, they were indeed very young and, although they had maturity sufficient to enable their views to cross the threshold, they could not bring to the prospect of a return any such sophisticated appraisal as would have been born of greater maturity. In these circumstances the objective of the Convention was a powerful factor militating in favour of a return notwithstanding their objections. In my view however the factor which strongly militated in the contrary direction was that, by the date of the judge's decision, the family had been settling into life in London for nine months and that, although he had not acquiesced in their removal, the father had at all material times known of their whereabouts in London and, instead of swiftly taking proceedings, had allowed time to pass and indeed for two months had himself joined the family here.” [26]

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team