Nottinghamshire County Council v B

Last updated

Nottinghamshire County Council v B & anor
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameIn the matter of s. 9 of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 and in the matter of Nottinghamshire County Council (Respondent) v KB and KB (Appellants) and The Health Service Executive and The Attorney General (Notice Parties)
Decided15 December 2011
Citation(s) [2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662
Case history
Appealed fromNottinghamshire County Council v B & Anor [2010] IEHC 9
Case opinions
The court noted that if a practice was not provided for by Irish legislation, it did not automatically follow that it violated the Constitution.
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham CJ, Murray J, Fennelly J, Macken J, O'Donnell J
Case opinions
Decision byMurray J, O'Donnell J
ConcurrenceDenham CJ, Fennelly J, Macken J
Keywords

Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the "Hague Convention"). [1]

Contents

Background

The appellants were the married parents of two children. The family lived in England until 2008, and had no prior connection with Ireland. Nottinghamshire County Council expressed concerns about the care of their children. In November 2008, the appellants moved to Ireland, with the children, who were taken into the care of the Health Service Executive (the "HSE"). Nottinghamshire County Council brought an application pursuant to Article 12 of the Hague Convention and Article 11 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 (the "Regulation") for the return of the children to the jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales. The parents contended that the return of the children would be in breach of the Irish Constitution, in that the law of the United Kingdom permitted adoption of the children of married couples in circumstances that would not be permitted in Ireland by virtue, they argued, of the constitutional rights afforded to families under Articles 41 and 42 of the Irish Constitution. The High Court rejected this argument. The trial judge found that adoption of the children in this case was no more than a “possibility”, rather than the object of the application itself. In the circumstances, the trial judge considered that it could not be said to be contrary to any fundamental principle of Irish constitutional law to order the return of the children. [2] [3] The parents appealed to the Supreme Court. [4]

Holding of the Supreme Court

O’ Donnell J gave the leading judgment in the Supreme Court. He noted that the arguments on both sides urged the Court to make "large generalisations, albeit that their proposed generalisations are almost diametrically opposed". [5] The judge warned against such an approach, noting that, in his view, the conclusions the Court should draw in this case should be nuanced.

The appellants’ arguments considered

O’ Donnell J rejected two “far reaching” propositions of the appellants. First, he rejected the argument that no child could be returned to a jurisdiction that did not recognise the “inalienable and imprescriptible” rights of the family under Articles 41 and 42 of the Irish Constitution. [6] Secondly, he addressed the argument that the adoption would not be permitted under Irish law on the basis of the facts of this case. It was not enough, he held, to simply establish that the law of another jurisdiction (here the law of England and Wales) was different to the law in Ireland. He held that it was necessary to go further and show “that the manner in which these children would be dealt with by the courts of the requesting jurisdiction must necessarily offend against the provisions of the Irish Constitution if administered in an Irish court”. [7]

The respondents’ arguments considered

O’ Donnell J also rejected the key arguments of the respondents. In particular, he rejected the argument that the Constitution could not be invoked (in the context of Article 20 of the Hague Convention) by persons who had only just arrived in Ireland (and arguably had brought a child to Ireland wrongfully within the meaning of the Hague Convention). [8] Article 20 of the Hague Convention provides that “[t]he return of the child under the provisions of Article 12 may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The test to be applied

In deciding whether or not a child should be returned to the requesting State (in this case, the United Kingdom), O’ Donnell J stated that the test to be applied is “whether what is proposed or contemplated in the requesting State is something which departs so markedly from the essential scheme and order envisaged by the Constitution and is such a direct consequence of the Court’s order that return is not permitted by the Constitution”. [9] O’ Donnell J held that this was not the situation in this case, as the return would not be manifestly incompatible with the Constitution. [10]

Murray J also gave a judgment in this case. He agreed that Article 20 of the Hague Convention could not be interpreted as meaning that the return of a wrongfully abducted child to his/her country of habitual residence must be refused by reason only of the fact that the law or judicial process in that country is not the same as that which the law of Ireland would require. [11] However, the judge concluded that the fact that the proceedings in England did include an application for placement with a view to adoption, dispensing with the consent of the parents, meant that appellants could seek to “assert constitutionally protected rights of their family" under the aegis of Article 20. [12] Ultimately, however, he concluded, that the assertion in this case was not well founded.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the ruling of the High Court that there were no grounds, under the law and the Constitution, for concluding that it would be impermissible to return the abducted children in to the United Kingdom.

Related Research Articles

<i>Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny</i> 2016 Irish Supreme Court case

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny, [2016] IESC 9, [2016] 2 IR 283 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court confirmed the Irish courts’ jurisdiction to strike out (dismiss) weak cases—those it considered “bound to fail."

<i>Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

<i>Engineering Design and Management v. Burton</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General,[2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Child and Family Agency v RD</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v RD [2014] IESC 47 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that jurisdiction of EU states which first issue orders have primacy but that the High Court in Ireland has the right under EU law to grant provisional protection orders to allow a child to stay in Ireland. The case clarified the jurisdiction of Irish courts under Article 20 of the European Union's Council Regulation No 2201/2003 on parental responsibility.

<i>J. McD v P.L and B.M</i> Irish Supreme Court case

J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological father, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 IR 518, was an Irish legal case in which the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom by Irish citizen Kenneth Dundon. The case is important in Irish law as Kenneth Dundon was the first man to be extradited under the European Arrest Warrants Act 2003 in Ireland.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<i>Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others [2013] 2 ILRM 276; [2013] IESC 21; [2013] 3 IR 718 is an Irish Supreme Court case, where an appeal was granted and the court made a declaration that the provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act are invalid considering the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. This court questioned the method by which wages and other benefits were set on a collective basis across numerous sectors.

<i>Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd.</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd, [2006] 1 IR 304; [2006] IESC 21 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court gave a woman permission to take action for damages against two major tobacco companies in what was the first step in the battle against 'Big tobacco'.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>MJELR v Rettinger</i> Irish Supreme Court case

MJELR v Rettinger[2010] IESC 45, [2010] 3 IR 783, was a case in which the Irish Supreme Court ruled that to resist the application of a European Arrest Warrant on the basis that it would result in treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the wanted individual must offer substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of such treatment.

<i>F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another</i> Irish Supreme Court case

F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another[2014] IESC 1; [2014] 1 IR 280 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court "clarified two important points about the habeas corpus jurisdiction":

  1. that the High Court's jurisdiction does lie in respect of detention orders made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction; and
  2. although the Constitution does not allow for stays to be placed on orders of habeas corpus, "orders can be made for controlling the release of persons who are incapable of protecting themselves."
<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd</i> (No 6) Irish Supreme Court case

Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] IESC 15; [2000] 4 IR 412 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered the test for objective bias in Ireland. During this case the Supreme Court considered:

  1. whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to set aside its own previous order;
  2. whether an appellant must show real likelihood of bias or whether reasonable apprehension of bias suffices; and
  3. whether a prior relationship of legal advisor and client would disqualify a judge.

References

  1. ↑ Shannon, Geoffrey (2012). "Nottinghamshire County Council v K.B. v K.B." The Irish Jurist. 47 (1): 203–209 – via Westlaw.ie.
  2. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B. & anor [2010] IEHC 9 [72].
  3. ↑ "Children taken here by parents must return to England". The Irish Times. Retrieved 27 May 2020.
  4. ↑ Savona, Riccardo (2012). "Extra-Territorial Claims for the Irish Constitution - The Supreme Court's Approach in the Case of Nottinghamshire County Council v B". Trinity College Law Review. 15: 127–132 – via HeinOnline.
  5. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [42]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [184] (O'Donnell J).
  6. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [44]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [186] (O'Donnell J).
  7. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [52]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [194] (O'Donnell J).
  8. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [73]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [215] (O'Donnell J).
  9. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [54]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [196] (O'Donnell J).
  10. ↑ "CASE SUMMARY: Nottinghamshire County Council v B". Bloomsbury Professional.
  11. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [29]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [63] (Murray J).
  12. ↑ Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 [39]; [2013] 4 IR 662 [112] (Murray J).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.