EUPillar Re G (A Child), C I v V G [2013] EWHC 4017 (Fam)

Summary

The proceedings were in respect of a child who was born in September 2008. The parties to the proceedings were both Italian. They met in England, commencing a relationship. They married in December 2008. This was not the first set of proceedings between the parties. In September 2012, the English court made a consent order, granting a temporary leave for the mother to remove the child from England, and approving a Shared Residence order. In July 2013, a new set of proceedings between the parties started in Italy. The Italian court had to consider inter alia whether it should be permitted for the mother and the child to relocate to Finland. On 11th September 2013, the mother made an application for a variation of a consent order, seeking inter alia a permission to remove the child to Finland for a finite period. The English court, being the second seised court had to stay its proceedings. In this context, Mr Justice Mostyn held: “37 It seems obvious to me that the Italian court here might have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter and further that it might be properly seised for the purposes of article 16 . In such circumstances, notwithstanding that I might personally think that the father would struggle to establish jurisdiction in Italy, it must be for the Italian court to determine by reference to its own national rules whether it is seised of the issues of parental responsibility put before it by the parents and if so to determine the question of jurisdiction. Fortunately there is a hearing in only five days time when those very issues may be decided. I cannot say here that it is manifestly clear from the object of the action brought before the Italian court first seised and from the account of the facts set out that that action contains no ground on which Italian court seised by that action could justifiably claim jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. 38 Therefore pursuant to my duty under article 19(2) I stay these proceedings until the Italian court has determined whether it is first seised and if so whether it has jurisdiction. The existing anti-suit injunction will be discharged.” [37-38] An appeal was made. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.