Re B (A Child)

Re B
Re B
Court	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case name	In the matter of B (A child)
Argued	8–9 December 2015
Decided	3 February 2016
Neutral citation	[2016] UKSC 4
Case history
Prior history	[2015] EWCA Civ 886
Related action	In re J (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562
Holding
	A child will only cease to have any habitual residence in extraordinary circumstances. Habitual residence is only lost when a sufficient degree of disengagement from the original environment has been lost.
Case opinions
Majority	Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Toulson
Dissent	Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption
Area of law
	Habitual residence; Jurisdiction; Children Act 1989

Last updated September 24, 2024

Re B (A Child) or In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning the habitual residence of a child under English law.

Facts

In 2004 the appellant and respondent began a same-sex relationship but at no point entered into a civil partnership. In 2008, following a course of intrauterine insemination the respondent gave birth to a baby girl (known throughout the case as 'B'). The respondent undertook most of the care for B but the appellant effectively acted as a co-parent to the child and helped to share the responsibilities. In 2011 the relationship broke down acrimoniously and the appellant left the family home. As the respondent gradually reduced the appellant's contact with B, she secretly made plans to move with B to Pakistan. This move took place on 3 February 2014 but the appellant did not find out until after she had made an application under the Children Act 1989 for shared residence or contact with B on 13 February 2014. This application was dependent on whether B was habitually resident on the day that the application was made and this was the issue before the court.

Judgment

High Court

In the High Court, Mrs Justice Hogg found that B had lost her habitual residence in England as soon as the respondent took her to Pakistan on 3 February 2014.

Court of Appeal

In August 2015 the Court of Appeal held that Mrs Justice Hogg had "applied the proper principles to the relevant facts" and accordingly dismissed the appellant's appeal.^[1]

Supreme Court

In the lead judgment, Lord Wilson held that the relevant question to be asked in this case was whether, on the date that the application was made (13 February 2014), "B had by then achieved the requisite degree of disengagement from her English environment; and highly relevant to the answer will be whether she had by then achieved the requisite degree of integration in the environment of Pakistan."^[2] Lord Wilson, alongside Lady Hale and Lord Toulson, concluded that there had not been the requisite degree of disengagement by 13 February 2014 and therefore B retained habitual residence in England. As a result of this conclusion the question regarding jurisdiction was moot.

Lord Sumption gave a dissenting judgment with which Lord Clarke agreed. He pointed out that "while the test for what constitutes habitual residence is a question of law, whether it is satisfied is a question of fact."^[3]

In this regard Mrs Justice Hogg heard the evidence of both sides, applied the relevant law and therefore it is not for the Supreme Court to intervene.

The judgment of the majority on the habitual residence issue meant that it was unnecessary to decide whether the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised although the judges did take the opportunity to offer dicta on the issue. Lady Hale and Lord Toulson would have exercised jurisdiction in this case; Lord Sumption and Lord Clarke would not have done; and Lord Wilson left the question open.

Significance

The lawyer who represented the Reunite International Child Abduction Centre in the case responded to the judgment by saying “This judgment is of huge practical significance – and is a remarkably humane and modern judgment. The court has sent out a message that a parent with sole legal rights will no longer succeed in avoiding proceedings by abducting a child.”^[4]

Related Research Articles

Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian, barrister and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018, and a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal from 2019 to 2024.

Roger Grenfell Toulson, Lord Toulson, PC was a British lawyer and judge who served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth[2011] UKSC 39 was a 2011 court ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned an intellectual property dispute over the production of Lucasfilm's Stormtrooper costumes by model maker Andrew Ainsworth. Mr Ainsworth argued that the helmets, which he continues to manufacture and sell, were functional props covered only by design right legislation, as opposed to Lucasfilm's assertion that they were sculptures or art which fall under copyright law. Design right protection is retained for 15 or 10 years, whereas copyright protection in this case would last 70 years after the death of the author.

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Yunus Rahmatullah [2012] UKSC 48 is a UK constitutional law case concerning the detention of Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani citizen detained in Iraq, and later Afghanistan, who is alleged to have travelled to Iraq to fight for Al-Qaeda during the Second Iraq War.

Mayne v Main is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 1 March 2001, with judgment handed down on 23 March. Smalberger ADCJ, Nienaber JA, Farlam JA, Mpati JA and Mthiyane AJA presided. A. Subel SC appeared for the appellant and JPV McNally for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Knowles, Husain Inc, Sandton, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Webber, Wentzel, Bowens, Johannesburg, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the Full Court in the Witwatersrand Local Division.

R v Central Criminal Court[2014] UKSC 17 was a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The court held that as inter partes proceedings created a lis between the parties, equal treatment meant that ex parte evidence in general could not be adduced.

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.

Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc[2015] UKSC 71 was a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to the exercise of directors' powers for a proper purpose under English company law.

R v Jogee[2016] UKSC 8 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that reversed previous case law on joint enterprise. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling jointly with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was considering an appeal from Jamaica, Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKPC 7.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2017. 5 cases have been decided as of 25 January 2017 and these are ordered by neutral citation.

Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited[2019] UKSC 50 is a judicial decision of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the duties owed by a bank where a person acting on behalf of a corporate customer of the bank directs the bank to transfer money out of the company's account as part of a fraudulent scheme.

Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG[2014] UKSC 22 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the conflict of laws and the assessment of damages following a road traffic accident.

Akers v Samba Financial Group[2017] UKSC 6, [2017] AC 424 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the conflict of laws, trust law and insolvency law.

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police[2018] UKSC 4 is a leading English tort law case on the test for finding a duty of care. An elderly woman was injured by two police officers attempting to arrest a suspect and she claimed that the police owed her a duty of care not to be put in danger. The UK Supreme Court found that the police did owe a duty of care in this case as there was no general rule that the police are not under any duty of care when performing their duties.

<i>Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH</i>

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH[2022] UKSC 29, [2022] 3 WLR 1111 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to the proper law to govern contribution claims in cross-border torts.

Gt v Kao[2007] IESC 55; [2008] 3 IR 567 is an Irish Supreme Court case which upheld the High Court's decision that, under article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, the appellant had acted unlawfully in taking her two children outside of Ireland without permission from the respondent.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2019.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2022.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2024.

References

↑ [2015] EWCA Civ 886. Para [30].
↑ [2016] UKSC 4. Para [48].
↑ [2016] UKSC 4. Para [64].
↑ Connett, David (3 February 2016). "Single parents who flee abroad with child 'cannot escape UK court proceedings'". The Independent . Retrieved 19 February 2016.

External links

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.

[1] [2015] EWCA Civ 886. Para [30].

[2] [2016] UKSC 4. Para [48].

[3] [2016] UKSC 4. Para [64].

[4] Connett, David (3 February 2016). "Single parents who flee abroad with child 'cannot escape UK court proceedings'". The Independent . Retrieved 19 February 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]