P, Re (Recognition And Registration of Orders Under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention)

Recognition of a child-protection measure made in another Contracting State occurs automatically under Article 23(1) of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. A party may nevertheless seek a determination of recognition or non-recognition under Article 24, and registration for enforcement under Article 26 is governed by the law of the requested State.

The registration process must be simple and rapid. Family Procedure Rules and practice directions should therefore be applied with a light touch where the court has sufficient information for the essentially administrative task of recognising or registering the order. The court may dispense with documents or information under rule 31.5(c). Registration does not involve review of the foreign order’s merits.

The father, resident in Australia, applied to register provisions of a consent order made by the Family Court of Australia concerning the child’s relocation to England and arrangements for contact. The application was made under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.

The mother attended in person and consented to registration. The application raised wider procedural issues because significant delays had occurred in obtaining registration, including uncertainty about fees, email filing and the documents required. The central issue was the procedure applicable in England and Wales to applications for recognition or registration under Articles 24 and 26.

1. The application was determined at the hearing and the Australian order was registered for enforcement. The mother consented, and the court had sufficient information despite the absence of the statement or affidavit required by PD31A.

2. Article 23(1) of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention provides automatic recognition in England and Wales. Recognition may be challenged under Article 23(2), including when an application is made under Article 26. Article 24 permits an interested person to seek a decision on recognition or non-recognition. Article 26 requires registration or a declaration of enforceability under the law of the requested State and mandates a simple and rapid procedure.

3. In England and Wales, the procedure adopted for Article 26 is registration rather than a declaration of enforceability. Regulation 8 of the Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (International Obligations)(England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2010 gives the High Court jurisdiction over applications under Articles 24 and 26, while recognition may also arise as an incidental question before another court.

4. Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 31 and PD31A must be applied consistently with the Convention’s requirement for expedition. The court’s task at the recognition or registration stage is essentially administrative. It must check that the foreign order is apt on its face and that the application falls within the relevant Convention provisions. The court must not review the merits of the foreign measure.

5. Rule 31.5(c) permits the court to dispense with required documents where it has sufficient information. That power extends to the information required by rule 31.4(2)(b). The documentary requirements should be applied with a light touch, particularly where the application concerns a mirror order or follows a direct request from a judge of the International Hague Network of Judges. Due process remains important, but it does not require unnecessary documentation where the administrative purpose of the procedure can be fulfilled.

6. Registration under rule 31.11 serves, for Article 24 purposes, as a decision that the judgment is recognised. The order was accordingly registered, and the judgment gave practical guidance on filing applications by email and on applying the procedural requirements proportionately.