Summary
The parties married in 2005, and divorced in 2010 in England. They had two children. The proceedings were in respect of their children. On 9th April 2012, an application was made by the father, seeking the English court to declare that it had jurisdiction over the matters in relation to their children. The mother had started a case in Dubai, seeking a guardianship of the children and maintenance for her and the children.
Although the father had challenged the jurisdiction of the courts in Dubai, a judgment was entered there on 20th May 2012.
The English court dismissed the father’s application, noting that the children were habitually residing in Dubai. Mrs Justice Theis DBE held:
“23 Even if the court is wrong in the analysis in paragraph 21, this court still has to consider the provisions of Article 12 (3) . Both children are British nationals ( Article 12 (3) (a) ). Re I ( ibid ) did not need to determine what the words ‘at the time the court is seised’ meant in Article 12 (3) (b) (see Re I paras [30] to [35] ), as the father in that case had unequivocally accepted the jurisdiction of the English courts. It will not be necessary for me in this case to grapple with that issue, as the court also has to consider the best interests of the child which I have formed a very firm view about. It is quite clear to me that it is not in the best interests of these children for this court to exercise jurisdiction about issues relating to their welfare when neither they or their parents, are present or habitually resident in this jurisdiction and that position is unlikely to change. It would be wholly artificial for this court to seek to determine issues about welfare in relation to children who have not lived here since 2007 and are unlikely to for the foreseeable future. As Baker J observed “All parties are habitually resident in Dubai and intend to stay there for the foreseeable future; the children are there; plainly therefore issues about what contact there should be or rather how the parenting time should be divided between the parties is a matter which is best determined by the court where the children are living, namely, the court of Dubai.” I agree.
24 Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this court declines to exercise its jurisdiction to determine both applications issued by the father and they shall be dismissed.” [23-24]