U (Recognition and Enforcement of Orders under the 1996 Hague Convention), Re

Recognition of a foreign child-protection measure under the 1996 Hague Convention operates by law unless an Article 23(2) ground for refusal is established. Procedural requirements for recognition and enforcement applications should be applied with a light touch where the court has sufficient information for the essentially administrative recognition exercise.

The relevant measure is the substantive order, not an appellate decision which merely refuses an appeal. Where a foreign order provides that it expires unless a party refers the matter to the judge within a specified period, its duration is determined by the wording of that order. A reference to the judge means the judge of the court which made the order unless the order indicates otherwise.

The father sought recognition and enforcement in England of French orders made in July and September 2022 concerning U. The July order entrusted U to his father and granted the mother supervised contact. The September order gave the father exclusive authority to exercise parental authority, established U’s habitual residence with him, and regulated the mother’s contact.

The French appellate court refused the mother’s appeal in May 2023 and confirmed the September order. The English proceedings had meanwhile been transferred from France under Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention and were being case-managed for future welfare decisions. The mother opposed recognition and enforcement, relying principally on procedural irregularity, public policy and the alleged removal of her parental responsibility. The central issues were which French orders required consideration and whether recognition and enforcement should be refused.

1. Procedural requirements. The requirements of FPR rule 31 and Practice Direction 31A were applied with a light touch, following Re P (Recognition and Registration of Orders under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention) [2014] EWHC 2845 (Fam). The court had sufficient information by 20 April 2023 because it had the father’s statement and translated judgments and orders. The application was therefore treated as validly before the court for recognition and enforcement purposes.
2. Orders requiring consideration. Article 23 of the 1996 Hague Convention concerns measures, meaning substantive orders. The May 2023 French appellate decision merely refused the appeal against the September 2022 order. It created no separate substantive measure requiring recognition or enforcement.
3. July 2022 order. Measures taken by a Contracting State are recognised by operation of law under Article 23(1), subject to the Article 23(2)(a)–(f) grounds. None of those grounds was established in relation to the July order. It was therefore recognised and enforceable in England under Article 26.
4. September 2022 order. The order stated that its provisions would become null and void unless a party referred the matter to the judge within one year. On its proper construction, the judge contemplated by that wording was the judge of the French court which made the order. The English proceedings and subsequent applications did not extend the order. The September order had therefore expired, so the court did not need to determine whether it should be recognised under Article 23.
5. The July order continued to govern U’s placement with his father, subject to later English orders regulating contact and preventing removal. The mother’s protective undertakings replaced the earlier non-molestation order.

This was a first-instance determination in the High Court Family Division. The French Court of Appeal refused the mother’s appeal in May 2023 and confirmed the September 2022 French order; that appellate decision was treated as producing no separate substantive measure for recognition.