Supreme Court Supports Mother Who Changed Mind Over Return to Australia

14th May 2018 By Arman Khosravi

Divorces where there is an international dimension often present specific issues, and a recent case involving a couple who had been living in Australia before they separated is no exception, leading ultimately to a hearing in the Supreme Court.

The British mother of two was living with her husband in Australia. The marriage was in difficulties and in May 2015, while on maternity leave, she returned to the UK with their children for a visit. It was agreed between the couple that she should extend her stay for up to a year, and she gave notice to her Australian employer and looked for work in the UK.

Without telling the children’s father, she applied in November 2015 for both children to be given British citizenship. The application was made on the ground that she feared they would all suffer domestic abuse if she returned to Australia.

In June 2016, she told her husband that she did not intend to return to Australia, having made up her mind to remain in the UK in April 2016. He then made an application for the children to be returned to Australia under the Hague Convention that deals with child abduction.

As the mother had removed the children from Australia with the father’s consent, they could not be considered to have been abducted, but could there have been a period of ‘wrongful retention’ of the children before the agreed period of absence had expired – i.e. from the time the mother changed her mind about returning to Australia? Secondly, could the children be said to have been abducted if they had become habitually resident in the UK?

On the facts, the Court found that the children had become habitually resident in the UK before their father’s application, so an order for their mandatory summary return under the Convention could not be made. In addition, the mother’s November 2015 decision to apply for citizenship for them did not amount to ‘repudiatory retention’ of the children as it was open to the judge to believe her evidence that she had not at that point decided to remain in the UK.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...