globe
  1. Seminar 1 - INTRODUCTORY MATTERS 2 items
    1. Essential Reading 2 items
      1. International family law: an introduction - Barbara Stark, Taylor & Francis Group 2016

        Book Essential See; pp 1 – 12, ‘Introduction: Why Study International Family Law?

      2. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

        Book Essential See: Chapters 1, 2 and 4.

  2. Seminar 2 - EXAMINATION OF PERSONAL LAW CONNECTING FACTORS (DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE) 11 items
    1. Essential Reading 8 items
      1. Books and Articles 5 items
        1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

          Book Essential See: Chapter 6.

      2. Legislation 2 items
      3. Cases 1 item
        1. Bell v Kennedy (1886) 6 Macph (HL) 69

          Udny (1869) 7 Macph (HL)89

          In re Furse [1980] 3 All ER 838

          Plummer v IRC [1988] 1 All E.R. 97

          In re Flynn [1968] 1 WLR 103

          Morgan v Cilento [2004] EWHC 188

          Sekhri v Ray [2014] EWCA Civ 119

          Proceedings brought by A Case C-523/07 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the ECJ from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) [2010] 2 WLR 527; [2009] E.C.R. I-2805; [2009] I.L.Pr. 39

          Mark v Mark [2005] 3 All E.R. 912

    2. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading 1 item
      1. CASE LAW

         

         

        DOMICILE

         

        Lloyd Evans [1947] Ch. 695

        Labaciankas 1949 SC 280

        Liverpool Royal Infirmary v Ramsay 1930 SC (HL) 83

        In re Fuld [1968] P.675

        IRC v Duchess of Portland [1982] Ch. 314

        Spence v Spence 1995 SLT 335

        Reddington v Riach's Executor 2002 SLT 537

        Breuning v Breuning [2002] 1 FLR 888

        Agulian v Cyganik [2006] EWCA Civ 129

        Special Commissioners in Robert Gaines-Cooper v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs [2007] EWHC 2617 (Ch)

        Henwood v Barlow Clowes International (In Liquidation) [2008] EWCA Civ 577

        Haji-Ioannou (deceased) v Frangos [2009] EWHC 230 (QB)

        Divall v Divall [2014] EWHC 95 (Fam)

        Holliday v Musa [2010] EWCA Civ 335

        Sylvester v Sylvester [2012] [2014] WTLR 127

         

         

        HABITUAL RESIDENCE

        Cruse v Chittum [1974] 2 All ER 940

        R v Barnet L.B.C. ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309

        Swaddling v Adjudication Officer [1999] All ER (EC) 217

        Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer [1999] 4 All ER 677

        Gingi v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2001] EWCA Civ 1685

        Ikimi v Ikimi [2001] 3 WLR 672

        Armstrong v Armstrong [2003] EWHC 777

        Mark v Mark [2005] 3 All E.R. 912

        Marinos v Marinos [2007] EWHC 2047

        Re P-J (Children) (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2009] EWCA Civ 588.

        Mercredi v Chaffe (C-497/10 PPU) [2011] I.L.Pr. 23, paras.53-55 (and subsequently, in the English Court of Appeal, [2011] EWCA Civ 272; [2011] 2 F.L.R. 515).

        R (on the application of Gaines-Cooper) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2012] 1 All ER 1048

        In re A (Children) (AP) (aka A v A and another (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2013] UKSC 60)

        In re L (A Child) (Custody: Habitual Residence) (aka DL v EL (Hague Abduction Convention: Effect of Reversal of Return Order on Appeal)  [2013] 3 WLR 1597; [2013] UKSC 75

        Z v. Z (Recognition of Brazilian Adoption Order) [2013] EWHC 747 (Fam)

        Re LC (Children) (International Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2014] UKSC 1

        Tan v Choy [2014] EWCA Civ 251

        C v M (Case C-376/14PPU) [2015] 2 W.L.R. 59

        In re R [2015] UKSC 35

    3. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.       What are the rules currently operative in the UK in the matter of ascertainment of domicile in its classic sense?      

                                           

        2.       In particular, citing examples, what are the rules operative in a British forum concerning (a) ascription of domicile of origin; acquisition of domicile of choice; and loss of domicile of choice?

         

        3.       Digest the following domicile cases, i.e. give an outline of the facts, state the context in which the

        legal issue of domicile arises, summarise the decision, and extract the ratio/rationes: -

         

        -          Bell v Kennedy (1886) 6 Macph (HL) 69

        -          Udny (1869) 7 Macph (HL)89 

        -          In re Furse [1980] 3 All ER 838

        -          Plummer v IRC [1988] 1 All E.R. 97

        -          In re Flynn [1968] 1 WLR 103

        -          Morgan v Cilento [2004] EWHC 188

        -          Sekhri v Ray [2014] EWCA Civ 119

         

        4.       Explain and critique section 22 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006.

         

        5.       What principles are applied by UK judges in the matter of ascertainment of an individual's habitual residence? 

         

        6.       Digest the following habitual residence cases:

         

        -          Proceedings brought by A Case C-523/07 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the ECJ from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) [2010] 2 WLR 527; [2009] E.C.R. I-2805; [2009] I.L.Pr. 39

        -          Mark v Mark [2005] 3 All E.R. 912 [ONLY re. habitual residence]

    4. For ongoing consideration 1 item
      1. In the 'Europeanisation era', where is the connecting factor of 'domicile' in its classic sense permitted to have a role?                                                                        

         

        What are the purposes for which 'domicile' are relevant? [see Mark v Mark [2005] 3 All E.R. 912, per Baroness Hale of Richmond]

         

        In what contexts is the connecting factor of 'habitual residence' relevant and interpretation thereof likely to arise in a UK court? 

  3. Seminar 3 - EXAMINATION OF CHOICE OF LAW RULES IN MARRIAGE – PART 1 12 items
    1. Essential Reading 10 items
      1. Books and Articles 3 items
        1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

          Book Essential See: Chapter 11 – paras 11-01; 11-14 – 11-16; 11-19 – 11-32; and 11-41.

        2. Dual locality events: marriage by telephone - E. B. Crawford, J. M. Carruthers 2011

          Article Essential

      2. Webpages 4 items
      3. Legislation 2 items
      4. Case law 1 item
        1. Starkowski v AG [1954] AC 155

          Cheni [1965] P 85: [1963] 2 WLR 17

          A v K [2011] SLT 873

          SB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (BB) [2014] UKUT 0495 (AAC)

    2. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading 1 item
      1. CASE LAW

         

        Characterisation of relationship

         

        Brook (1861) 11 E.R. 703; (1861) 9 H.L. Cas. 193

        Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee [1861-73] All E.R. Rep. 175; (1865-69) L.R. 1 P&D 130

        Nachimson [1930] P.217

        Lee v Lau [1967] P.14

        Hudson v Leigh [2009] EWHC 1306 (Fam)

         

        Formal validity of marriage

         

        Berthiaume v Dastous [1930] AC 79

        Apt [1949] P83

        Taczanowska v Taczanowski [1957] P 301

        Ponticelli [1958] P 204

        Lazarewicz v Lazarewicz [2962] P 171

        Gereis v Yagoub [1997] 1 FLR 854

        Walker v Roberts 1998 SLT 1133

        Ackerman v Logan's Exr 2002 SLT 37

        Ghandi v Patel [2002] 1 FLR 603

        Alfonso-Brown v Milwood [2006] EWHC 642

        Al-Saedy v Mussawi [2010] EWHC 3293 (Fam)

        R v M [2011] EWHC 2132 (Fam)

        Dukali v Lamrani [2012] EWHC 1748 (Fam)

        Galloway v Goldstein [2012] EWHC 60 (Fam)

        MO v RO (Declaration of Marital Status) [2013] EWHC 392 (Fam)

        Asaad v Kurter [2013] EWHC 3852 (Fam)

        K v A [2015] Fam Law 137

         

        Capacity to marry

         

        Mette v Mette (1859) 1 Sw & Tr 416

        Brook (1861) 11 E.R. 703; (1861) 9 H.L. Cas. 193

        De Wilton [1900] 2 Ch 781

        In re Paine [1940] Ch 46

        Pugh [1951] P 528

        Kenward [1951] P 124

        Radwan No. 2 1973 Fam. 35 [1972] 3 WLR 939 2 All ER 1026

        Lawrence v Lawrence [1985] 2 All ER 733

        Sheffield City Council v E [2004] EWHC 2808

        M v B [2005] EWHC 1681

        Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity) (Marriage) [2005] EWHC 2942

        X City Council v MB [2006] EWHC 168

        Westminster City Council v C [2008] EWCA Civ 198

    3. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.                   What are the choice of law rules operative in Scots law in the matter of the formal and essential validity of marriage?

         

        2.                   Is the choice of law rule concerning formal validity of marriage adequately expressed in the maxim locus regit actum?

         

        3.                   In what circumstances and to what effect can the elapse of time be significant in conflict problems pertaining to marriage, addressing such topics as the formal validity of marriage, and capacity to marry.

         

        4.                   The law of Egypt prohibits marriage where the age gap between the parties exceeds 25 years. Janice, a 26 year old Scots domiciliary, whilst on holiday on a Nile cruise, met Omar, an Egyptian businessman, aged 76 years. Omar had just divorced his first wife, Mona, by pronouncing talaq (an Islamic religious divorce) in Cairo, Egypt. After a short courtship, Omar and Janice travelled to Dubai, where they married. Thereafter they set up home in Cairo. One year later, Janice deserted Omar, and returned to Scotland, where she has begun cohabiting with Hamish. Omar having died, Janice wishes to establish her status as Omar's widow for the purposes of succession to his estate.

         

        Advise Janice on the validity of her marriage in the view of Scots law.

         

        5.                  "[Section] 38(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 … appears to have the effect of excluding [in Scots law] the operation of the matrimonial domicile theory." (Crawford & Carruthers, para 11-19). In your view, is this a good or a bad result? Why?

         

        6.                  German child brides:

         

        § Read the various sources posted on the class Moodle page pertaining to the issue of German child brides.

         

        § The record number of over one million refugees who have come to Germany over the past 2 years has raised the concern of child marriages amid reports of hundreds of children arriving as refugees and migrants in Germany, already married. There has been an agonized debate in Germany about how best to address this issue, and governments in Denmark and the Netherlands have had to grapple with the problem.

         

        Should a 14 year old 'married girl' who migrates to Europe be viewed as a child or as a wife?

         

        At what point does the avoidance of limping status take second place to keeping faith with the conscience of court?  

  4. Seminar 4 - EXAMINATION OF CHOICE OF LAW RULES IN MARRIAGE – PART 2 (POLYGAMY AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE) 17 items
    1. A. THE SPECIAL CASE OF POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE 8 items
      1. Essential Reading 8 items
        1. Books and Articles 2 items
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: Chapter 11 - paras. 11-01; and 11-07 – 11-18.

          2. Polygamy - Catherine Fairbairn 2017

            Document Essential

        2. Webpages 1 item
        3. Legislation 4 items
          1. Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977

            Legislation  See: ss. 2(3)(b) and 5(4)(b).

        4. Case law 1 item
          1. Parkasho v Singh [1967] 1 All ER 737

            In re Sehota [1978] 3 All E.R. 385.

            Hussain [1982] 3 ALL E.R. 369

            Official Solicitor v Yemoh [2011] 4 All E.R. 200

            H.A.H. v S.A.A. and ors [2017] IES 40 (Supreme Court of Ireland)

    2. B. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 7 items
      1. Essential Reading 7 items
        1. Books 1 item
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: paras. 11.01 – 11.06 and 11.33 – 11.38.

        2. Legislation 5 items
          1. Scotland 3 items
            1. Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

              Legislation  See: ss 1-22; Schedules 2 (Extraterritorial Matters), 4 (Effect of Extension of Marriage: Further Provision) and 6 (Marriage Overseas).

            2. The Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014

              Legislation  SI 2014/1110 (amending S 38, Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, s.38).

          2. England and Wales 2 items
        3. Case law 1 item
          1. Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2006] EWHC 2022 (Fam)

            Court v Despallieres (Re Ikin Deceased) [2009] EWHC 3340 (Ch)

            Steinfeld v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWCA Civ 81; [2017] 4 All E.R. 47

             

    3. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading 1 item
      1. CASE LAW

         

                 The developing law

         

        Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee [1866] L.R. 1 P&D 130

        Armitage (1866) L.R. 3 Eq. 343

        Re Bethell (1888) 38 Ch.D. 220

        Brinkley v. Att-Gen. 15 P.D. 76

        The Sinha Peerage Case [1946] 1 All E.R. 348

         

                 Classes of case

         

        Consistorial actions

        Mehta [1945] 2 All E.R. 690

        Baindail [1946] P. 122

        Risk [1951] P. 50

        R. v. Sagoo [1955] A.C. 107

        Muhammed v. Suna 1956 S.C. 366

        Sowa [1961] P. 70

        Rampal v Rampal [2001] 3 W.L.R. 795

        Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif [2009] 1 F.L.R. 115

        MET v HAT (Interim Maintenance) [2013] EWHC 4237 (Fam)

         

        Status and succession

        The Sinha Peerage Case [1946] 1 All E.R. 348

        Bamgbose v. Daniel [1955] A.C. 107

        Official Solicitor v Yemoh [2011] 4 All E.R. 200

         

        General

        Mawji v. The Queen 1957 A.C. 126

        Shanaz v. Rizwan [1964] 2 All E.R. 993

        Iman Din v. National Assistance Board [1967] 2 Q.B. 213

        Alhaji Mohamed v. Knott [1968] 2 All E.R. 563

        Nabi v. Heaton [1983] 1 W.L.R. 626

        MO v RO (Declaration of Marital Status) [2013] EWHC 392 (Fam)

        R v Bala [2017] QB 430

         

                 Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act 1972

         

        Chaudhry [1975] 3 All E.R. 687; aff'd [1976] 1 All E.R. 805

         

                 Capacity to enter into a polygamous marriage

         

        Lendrum v. Chakravarti 1929 S.L.T. 96

        McDougall v. Chitnavis 1937 S.C. 39

        Radwan (No 2) [1972] 3 All E.R. 1026

    4. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.       Digest, i.e. give an outline of the facts, narrate the decision, and extract the ratio/rationes of Parkasho v Singh [1967] 1 All ER 737.

         

        2.       What was the mischief sought to be removed by the Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act 1972, s 2?

         

        3.       Digest the following cases:

         

        a.       In re Sehota [1978] 3 All E.R. 385.

        b.       Hussain [1982] 3 ALL E.R. 369

         

        4.       What was the mischief sought to be removed by the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, s.7?

         

        5.       Taking into account the Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act 1972, s 2, and the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, s.7, what would you say is the attitude of Scots and English aw to polygamous marriage?

         

        6.       Digest the following cases:

         

        a.       Official Solicitor v Yemoh [2011] 4 All E.R. 200

        b.       H.A.H. v S.A.A. and ors [2017] IES 40 (Supreme Court of Ireland)  

         

        7.       Do you think the decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland inH.A.H. v S.A.A. and ors [2017] IES 40  is the 'correct' one? Why?

         

        8.       What international private law implications arise from the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scots and English domestic law?

         

        9.       What reasoning would a Scots court adopt if required to address the subject of the recognition or not of a same-sex marriage celebrated abroad?

         

        10.    To what extent would you say that Scots and English law have come to a satisfactory accommodation of religious and cultural considerations in cross-border cases involving the constitution of marriage?

  5. Seminar 5 - DISSOLUTION OF ADULT RELATIONSHIPS – PART 1 (JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENT RECOGNITION IN MATRIMONIAL MATTERS) 20 items
    1. A. JURISDICTION IN MATRIMONIAL MATTERS 6 items
      1. Essential Reading 6 items
        1. Books and Articles 3 items
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: Chapter 12. (excluding 12.18 – 12.26 and 12.48 – 12.55)

        2. Legislation 2 items
        3. Case law 1 item
          1. Ikimi v Ikimi [2001] 3 WLR 672

            Armstrong v Armstrong [2003] EWHC 777

            Marinos v Marinos [2007] 2 FLR 1018

             

            S v S (Brussels II Revised: Articles 19(1) and (3): Reference to ECJ) [2014] EWHC 3613 (Fam)… and its sequel:

            A v B (C-489/14) [2016] Fam. 345

             

            Shemshadfard v Shemshadfard [1986] 1 All ER 726

            De Dampierre v De Dampierre [1987] 2 All ER 1

             

            JKN v JCN [2010] EWHC 843 (Fam)

            AB v CD (Divorce and Maintenance: Discretion to Stay) (also known as Mittal v Mittal) [2014] Fam 102

            Chai v Peng [2015] EWCA Civ 1312

    2. B. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN MATRIMONIAL DECREES 6 items
      1. Essential Reading 6 items
        1. Books and Articles 2 items
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: paras 12.27 – 12-42 and 12.56 and 12.62.

        2. Legislation 2 items
        3. Webpages 1 item
        4. Cases 1 item
          1. Extrajudicial divorces

            Quazi v Quazi  [1979] 3 All ER 897

            Chaudhary v Chaudhary [1984] 3 All ER 1017

            H v H (Validity of Japanese Divorce) [2006] EWHC 2989 (Fam)

             

            Remarriage after foreign divorce

            Padolecchia v Padolecchia [1968] P. 314

            R. v Brentwood Superintendent Registrar of Marriages Ex p. Arias [1968] 2 Q.B. 956.

            Perrini v Perrini [1979] Fam. 84

             

            Transnational divorces

            R v Home Secretary, ex p Fatima [1984] 2 All ER 458

            Berkovits v Grinberg [1995] 2 All ER 681

            Sulaiman v Juffali [2002] 1 F.L.R. 479


    3. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading re. JURISDICTION IN MATRIMONIAL MATTERS 5 items
      1. Books and Articles 3 items
        1. Cross-border divorce law: Brussels II bis - Máire Ní Shúilleabháin 2010

          Book Further See: Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5.

      2. Webpages 1 item
      3. Case law 1 item
        1. Brussels II bis, Article 3

          L-K v K [2006] EWHC 153

          R v R (Divorce: Jurisdiction (Domicile)) [2006] 1 FLR 389

          Moore v Moore  [2006] I L Pr 29

          A v L (also known as F v F) [2009] EWHC 1448 (Fam)

          Munro v Munro [2008] 1 FLR 1613

          Sundiland Lopez v Lopez Lizzazo [2008] ILPr 4

          Re Hadadi (otherwise Hadady) Case C-168/08 (2008) C-158/20 [2009] ECR 1/6871

          Williamson v Williamson 2010 SLT (Sh.Ct) 41

          Re N (Jurisdiction) [2007] EWHC 1274; and sub nom Re N (Jurisdiction) NDO v JFO [2009] ILPr 8

          Divall v Divall [2014] EWHC 95

          Sekhri v Ray [2014] EWCA Civ 119

          Rapisarda v Colladon (also known as Re 180 Irregular Divorces) [2014] EWFC 35

          Jefferson v O'Connor [2014] EWCA Civ 38

           

          Brussels II bis, Art 19 (intra-EU)

          Trussler v Trussler [2003] EWCA Civ 1830

          L-K v K [2006] EWHC 153

          Re N (Jurisdiction) [2007] EWHC 1274; and sub nom Re N (Jurisdiction) NDO v JFO [2009] ILP.8

          C v S [2011] Fam Law 682

          Purrucker v Valles Perez (Case C-296/10)[2011] I.L.Pr. 14

           

          Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, Sch.3.8 and 3.9 (non-EU) 

          Mitchell v Mitchell 1993 SLT 123

          Butler v Butler [1997] 2 All ER 822

          Breuning v Breuning [2002] 1 FLR 888

          Otobo v Otobo [2003] 1 FLR 192

          Armstrong v Armstrong [2003] EWHC 777

          Bloch v Bloch [2003] 1 FLR 1

          Ella v Ella [2007] EWCA Civ. 99

          Cook v Plummer [2008] EWCA Civ 484

          A v L [2009] EWHC 1448 (Fam)

          M v M [2010] Fam Law 1058

          AB v CB (Divorce and Maintenance: Discretion to Stay) (also known as Mittal v Mittal) [2014] Fam 102

          Tan v Choy [2014] EWCA Civ 251

    4. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading re. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN MATRIMONIAL DECREES 2 items
      1. Books and Articles 1 item
        1. Cross-border divorce law: Brussels II bis - Máire Ní Shúilleabháin 2010

          Book Further See: Chapter 6.

      2. Cases 1 item
        1. Historical background

          Le Mesurier [1895] AC 517

          Armitage v Att Gen [1906] P. 135

          Travers v Holley [1953] P. 246

          Mountbatten v Mountbatten (No.1) [1959] P. 43

          Indyka v Indyka [1969] 1 AC 33

          Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971

           

          The Non-EU Scheme

          Kendall v Kendall [1977] Fam 208

          Newmarch v Newmarch [1978] 1 All E.R. 1

          Joyce v Joyce & O'Hare [1979] 2 All E.R. 156

          Emin v Yeldag [2002] 1 FLR 956

          Duhur-Johnson v Duhur-Johnson [2005] 2 FLR 1042

          Akhtar v Rafiq [2006] 1 FLR 27

          Golubovich v Golubovich [2011] Fam 88

          Ivleva (formerly Yates) v Yates (orwise Ivelda v Yates) [2014] EWHC 554 (Fam)

           

          Overseas Extrajudicial Divorces

          El Fadl v El Fadl [2000] 1 FCR 685

          Sulaiman v Juffali [2002] 1 FLR 479

          Ahmed v Ahmed 2006 SLT 135

          Abbassi v Abbassi [2006] 2 FLR 415

          H v H (talaq divorce) (otherwise K v R) [2007] EWHC 2945 (Fam)

          A v L [2010] 2 FLR 1418

          H v S (Recognition of Overseas Divorce) [2012] 2 FLR 157

          Shagroon v Sharbatly [2012] EWCA Civ 1507

          NP v KRP [2013] EWHC 694 (Fam)

          Met v Hat [2014] EWHC 717

          Solovyev v Solovyeva [2014] EWFC 1546

          K v A [2015] Fam Law 137

          X v Y [2015] EWHC 1462 (Fam)

          Liaw v Lee [2015] EWHC 1462 (Fam)


    5. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.       What rules of jurisdiction apply in matrimonial matters in a Scots forum?

         

        2.       Digest the following cases, i.e. precis the facts, explain the point of jurisdiction in issue, narrate the decision, and extract the ratio/rationes:

         

        -          Marinos v Marinos [2007] 2 FLR 1018;

        -          Ikimi v Ikimi [2001] 3 WLR 672; and

        -          Armstrong v Armstrong [2003] EWHC 777. 

         

        3.       Explain the two regulatory systems by which UK courts deal with the problem of conflicting concurrent jurisdiction in matrimonial actions. As part of your analysis, give an account of the facts and decision in De Dampierre v De Dampierre [1987] 2 All ER 1, and explain how the case would be treated were it to arise today. What was the nature of the problem which arose, respectively, in JKN v JCN [2010] EWHC 843 (Fam) and AB v CD (Divorce and Maintenance: Discretion to Stay) (also known as Mittal v Mittal) [2014] Fam 102, and what is the solution favoured by the English Court of Appeal?

         

        4.       What revisions would you make to Brussels II bis in the light of experience? Should party autonomy in matrimonial jurisdiction be permitted?

         

        5.       What will be the impact of Brexit in the area of matrimonial jurisdiction? What post-Brexit solution would you support?

         

        6.       What rules of recognition of overseas decrees of divorce and nullity operate (a) in relation to EU decrees; and (b) in relation to non-EU decrees?

         

        7.       Give a commentary on section 46 of the Family Law Act 1986.

         

        8.       Explain the conflict of laws dilemma which confronted the court in each of Padolecchia v Padolecchia [1968] P. 314, R. v Brentwood Superintendent Registrar of Marriages Ex p. Arias [1968] 2 Q.B. 956, and Perrini v Perrini [1979] Fam. 84, and the solution which section 50 of the Family Law Act 1986 provides.

         

        9.       What interpretative problem arose in R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Fatima [1984] 2 All E.R. 458 and Berkovits v Grinberg [1995] 2 All E.R. 681? What is the attitude of UK courts towards transnational divorces?

         

        10.   What will be the impact of Brexit in the area of recognition of overseas matrimonial decrees? What post-Brexit solution would you support?

         

  6. Seminar 6 - DISSOLUTION OF ADULT RELATIONSHIPS – PART 2 (CHOICE OF LAW IN MATRIMONIAL CAUSES) 22 items
    1. A. CHOICE OF LAW IN DIVORCE 8 items
      1. Essential Reading 8 items
        1. Books and Articles 4 items
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: paras 12.18 – 12.26.

        2. Legislation 4 items
          1. For background:

    2. B. CHOICE OF LAW IN NULLITY 11 items
      1. Essential Reading 11 items
        1. Books and Articles 2 items
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: paras 12.48 – 12.55.

        2. Webpages 3 items
          1. Understanding forced marriage in Scotland

            Document Essential See: Executive Summary and Chapter 5.

        3. Legislation 5 items
          1. Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

            Legislation  See: s 2, inserting s 20A into Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.

          2. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

            Legislation  See: Part 10 Forced marriage: s. 121 (Offence of forced marriage: England and Wales) and s. 122 (Offence of forced marriage: Scotland).

        4. Case law 1 item
          1. H v. H [1954] P 258

            Szechter [1971] P 286 2 WLR 170

            Akram 1979 SLT (Notes) 599

            Mahmood v Mahmood 1993 SLT 589

            Mahmud v Mahmud 1994 SLT 599

            Sohrab v Khan 2002 SLT 1255

            Hakeem v Hussain 2003 SLT 515 (and on appeal sub nom. SH v KH 2005 SLT 1025)

            Singh v Singh 2005 SLT 749

            City of Edinburgh Council v S 2015 SLT (Sh.Ct.) 69

    3. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading re. CHOICE OF LAW IN NULLITY 2 items
      1. Webpages 1 item
      2. Cases 1 item
        1. Buckland [1958] P 296

          Di Rollo v Di Rollo 1959 SC 75

          City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department v C [2009] Fam 11

          Re P (Forced Marriage) [2010] EWHC 3467 (Fam)

          XCC v AA [2012] EWHC 2183 (COP)

          Asaad v Kurter [2013] EWHC 3852

          N v D [2015] EWFC 28

    4. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.       What choice of law rule in divorce would be applied by a UK court? What is the rationale for the rule?  

         

        2.       Give a précis of Rome III, explain why the UK opted not to participate in Rome III, and offer a reasoned opinion on whether or not the UK was right to stand aside from that instrument.

         

        3.       What are the choice of law rules operative in nullity proceedings brought in a Scots forum? What is the content of and rationale for the choice of law rules applied by a Scots court when hearing a petition for annulment of marriage in a case having foreign elements?

         

        4.       Digest the following cases, i.e. give an outline of the facts, narrate the decision, and extract the ratio/rationes:

         

        -          Szechter [1971] P 286;

        -          H v. H [1954] P 258;

        -          Singh v Singh 2005 SLT 749.

         

        5.       Why do the choice of law rules in divorce and annulment differ so markedly?  

         

        6.       Tracing the path from Akram 1979 SLT (Notes) 599, through Hakeem v Hussain 2003 SLT 515 to its appeal sub nom. SH v KH 2005 SLT 1025), explain the nature of the perceived mischief which the insertion of section 20A into the Marriage (Scotland) 1977 by section 2 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 is intended to eradicate, and speculate as to the effectiveness of the solution.

         

        7.       Outline the purpose and main provisions of the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011.

         

        8.       Give a precis of the facts and law applied in City of Edinburgh Council v S 2015 SLT (Sh.Ct.) 69, and give a reasoned assessment of the outcome in that case.

         

        9.       Does Scots law in its international private law dimension adequately protect victims of forced marriage? Justify your answer.

         

  7. Seminar 7 - PROPRIETARY CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE AND FINANCIAL PROVISION ON DIVORCE IN A CROSS-BORDER CONTEXT 15 items
    1. A. PROPRIETARY CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE 8 items
      1. Essential Reading 8 items
        1. Books and Articles 2 items
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: paras 13-01 – 13-11, and 13-17 (i.e. excluding material on maintenance)

        2. Legislation 3 items
        3. Webpages 2 items
        4. Cases 1 item
          1. Statutory community of goods

            Lashley v Hog (1804) 4 Paton 581

            De Nicols v Curlier [1900] AC 21

            De Nicols (No 2) [1900] 2 Ch. 410

            Shand-Harvey v Bennet Clark 1910 1 S.L.T. (Sh.Ct.) 133

            Cooper v Cooper's Trustees (1888) 15 R. (HL) 21

            Callwood [1960] AC 659

             

            Private marriage contract

            Radmacher v Granatino (also known as G v R (Pre-Nuptial Contract)) [2010] UKSC 42 (and in the Court of Appeal: [2009] EWCA Civ 649)

             

            No marriage contract (mutability)

            Frankel's Estate v The Master 1950 (1) S.A.L.R. 220 (South Africa; Appellate Division)

    2. B. FINANCIAL PROVISION UPON TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE 3 items
      1. Essential Reading 3 items
        1. Books and Articles 1 item
          1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

            Book Essential See: paras 13-42 – 13-47.

        2. Legislation 1 item
          1. Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984

            Legislation  See: Parts III (England) and IV (Scotland).

        3. Cases 1 item
          1. Torok v Torok [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1066

            Tahir v Tahir 1993 SLT 194

            Tahir v Tahir (No.2), 1995 SLT 451

             

            Hewitson v Hewitson [1995] 1 All E.R. 472

            Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] 2 All E.R. 877.

            Shagroon v Sharbatly [2012] EWCA Civ 1507

            Zimina v Zimin [2017] EWCA Civ 1429

    3. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading re. PROPRIETARY CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE 2 items
      1. Legislation 1 item
      2. Cases 1 item
        1. § Statutory community of goods

          Chiwell v Carlyon (1897) 14 SC 61 (South Africa)

          Re Allen's Estate [1945] 2 All ER 264

          Callwood [1960] AC 659

          Re Mengel's Will Trusts [1962] Ch. 791

           

          § Private marriage contract

          Re Bankes [1902] 2 Ch. 333

          Duke of Marlborough v Attorney-General (No 1) [1945] Ch. 78

          Goold Stuart's Trustees v McPhail 1947 2 S.L.T. 221

          Radmacher v Granatino (also known as G v R (Pre-Nuptial Contract)) [2010] UKSC 42

          Gray v Work [2015] EWHC 384 (Fam)

           

          Capacity to enter into marriage contract

          Cooper v Cooper's Trustees (1888) 15 R. (HL) 21

          Black v Black's Trustees 1950 S.L.T. (Notes) 32

           

          Formal validity

          Countess of Seafield v Earl of Seafield Feb. 8 1814 F.C.

          Re Bankes [1901] 2 Ch. 333

           

          Essential validity

          Sawrey Cookson v Sawrey Cookson's Trustees (1905) 8 F. 157

          Hope Vere v Hope Vere 1907 13 S.L.T. 774, 1907 15 S.L.T. 361

          Lister's Judicial Factor v Syme 1914 S.C. 204

           

          Marriage contracts and a change of domicile

          Shand-Harvey v Bennett Clark 1910 1 S.L.T. (Sh.Ct.) 133

           

          Marriage contracts and divorce

          Mongomery v Zarifi 1918 S.C. (HL) 128

          Drummond v Bell-Irving 1930 S.C. 704

           

          § No marriage contract

           

          Welch v Tennent (1891) 18 R. (HL) 72

          Re Egerton [1956] Ch. 593

           


    4. Further (i.e. Optional) Reading re. FINANCIAL PROVISION UPON TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE 1 item
      1. Cases 1 item
        1. Holmes v Holmes [1989] 3 All E.R. 786

          Garcia v Garcia [1991] 3 All E.R. 451

          A v S (Financial Relief after Overseas US Divorce) [2002] EWHC 1157 (Fam)

          Moore v Moore [2007] I.L.Pr. 36

          Traversa v Freddi (Part III Application following Italian Divorce) [2011] EWCA Civ 81

          S v AG (Financial Orders: Lottery Prize[2011] EWHC 2637

          Schofield v Schofield [2011] EWCA Civ 174

          M v W [2014] EWHC 925 (Fam)

    5. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.       Explain the common law choice of law rules pertaining to matrimonial property, including the treatment of marriage contracts (statutory and private) and cases where there is no marriage contract.

         

        2.       Digest the following cases, i.e. recount the facts, narrate the decision, and extract the ratio/rationes:

         

        De Nicols v Curlier (No 1) [1900] A.C. 21;

        De Nicols v Curlier (No 2) [1900] 2 Ch. 410; and

        Callwood v Callwood [1960] A.C. 659. 

         

        3.       Explain and analyse section 39 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, identifying its merits and/or demerits.

         

        4.       Give a précis of the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation, explain why the UK opted not to participate in the harmonisation initiative, and offer a reasoned opinion on whether or not the UK was right to stand aside from the instrument.

         

        5.       Digest the Supreme Court decision of Radmacher v Granatino, [2010] UKSC 42 (1st instance: [2008] EWHC 1532 (Fam); and CA: [2009] EWCA Civ. 649).

         

        6.       What rules operate in relation to the award of financial provision in a UK court following the grant of an overseas divorce or nullity?

         

        7.       Recount the facts and explain the decision in Torok v Torok [1973] 1 WLR 1066; outline the provisions of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part IV; and precis the decision in Tahir v Tahir 1993 SLT 194; and Tahir v Tahir (No.2), 1995 SLT 451.

         

        8.       Recount the facts and explain and evaluate the decision in each of:

         

        Hewitson v Hewitson [1995] 1 All ER 472;       

        Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] 2 All E.R. 877; and

              Zimina v Zimin [2017] EWCA Civ 1429.

                                                                                                 

         

         

         

         

         

  8. SEMINAR 8 – CONFLICT RULES AFFECTING CHILDREN – PART 1 (JURISDICTION) 19 items
    1. Essential Reading 9 items
      1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

        Book  See: paras 14-06 to 14-23, 14-29 to 14-31, 14-36 to 14-43, 14-66

      2. Brexit and family law - Resolution,* International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL)** and Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)***

        Article 

      3. Family Law Act 1986

        Legislation  See: SS 8 - 18

    2. Further Reading 9 items
      1. Private international law - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy, A. E. Anton, WESTLAW (Information retrieval system) 2011

        Book  See: paras 17.14 – 17.39

      2. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws - Albert Venn Dicey, J. H. C. Morris 2012

        Book  See: paras 19-026 to 19-048, 19-056 to 19-062

      3. Cheshire, North & Fawcett private international law 2017

        Book  See: paras 19-026 to 19-048, 19-056 to 19-062

    3. Questions 1 item
        1. Describe the subject-matter scope of the Brussels II bis Regulation (insofar as it relates to parental responsibility matters) and the 1996 Hague Convention on Child Protection

         

        1. Assess the contribution of the CJEU to the development of the concept of 'habitual residence' in relation to children

         

        1. Do you consider that it is appropriate to permit a choice of court in cases involving children? How far is there any role for party autonomy in the Brussels II bis Regulation, and the 1996 Hague Convention on Child Protection, in this regard?

         

        1. What is the significance of the provisions on transfer of cases in the Brussels II bis Regulation, and the 1996 Hague Convention on Child Protection?

         

  9. SEMINAR 9 – CONFLICT RULES AFFECTING CHILDREN – PART 2 (CHOICE OF LAW; RULES OF RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT) 17 items
    1. Essential Reading 9 items
      1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

        Book  See: paras 14-24 to 14-28, 14-33, 14-44.

      2. Brexit and family law - Resolution,* International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL)** and Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)***

        Article 

      3. Family Law Act 1986

        Legislation  See: SS 25 – 132

    2. Further Reading 7 items
      1. Private international law - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy, A. E. Anton, WESTLAW (Information retrieval system) 2011

        Book  See: paras 17.40 – 17.59

      2. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws - Albert Venn Dicey, J. H. C. Morris 2012

        Book  See: paras 19-082 to 19-091, 19-104 to 19-112

      3. Cheshire, North & Fawcett private international law 2017

        Book  See: pp 1125 - 1134

    3. Questions 1 item
        1. Cases involving children "are often so complicated, and require such urgent attention, that the pleading, proof, and application of foreign law would be utterly self-defeating: in this area of the law especially, the best cannot be allowed to be the enemy of the good" (A Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, 3rd edn. (2013), p. 360). Do you agree?

         

        1. What differences would there be in the future (with regard to the recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to matters of parental responsibility), if the Brussels II bis Regulation were to be recast as is currently proposed?

         

        1. Focusing on the recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to matters of parental responsibility, discuss the consequences of the UK's withdrawal from the EU

         

        1. How well do you consider that the recognition and enforcement provisions (with regard to parental responsibility matters) of the Family Law Act 1986 operate?

         

         


  10. SEMINAR 10 – CROSS-BORDER MAINTENANCE RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RESPECT OF CHILDREN 17 items
    1. Essential Reading 10 items
      1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

        Book  See: paras 13-18 to 13-41

      2. The law relating to parent and child in Scotland - Kenneth McK. Norrie, WESTLAW (Information retrieval system), Sweet & Maxwell 2013

        Book  See: paras 13.28 – 13.83

      3. Brexit and family law - Resolution,* International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL)** and Family Law Bar Association (FLBA)***

        Article 

    2. Further Reading 6 items
      1. Private international law - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy, A. E. Anton, WESTLAW (Information retrieval system) 2011

        Book  See: chap 19

      2. The recovery of maintenance in the EU and worldwide 2014

        Book  See: Chaps 1, 7 – 9 (by way of background); & Chaps 19 – 21, 27.

    3. Questions 1 item
        1. "The need to be able to recover maintenance and child support from abroad has been clear for many years and the search to find a successful method for achieving this has been a matter of longstanding debate and frustration" (Walker, Maintenance and Child Support in Private International Law (2015), p. 15). Why is this?

         

        1. Do the jurisdiction rules of the EU Maintenance Regulation (with respect to maintenance obligations owed towards children), represent an improvement on the previous approach of the Brussels I Regulation? Justify your answer.

         

        1. Do you think Scots law would have benefitted from the UK adopting the 2007 Hague Protocol?

         

        1. What different (general) approaches can be adopted in respect of the recognition and enforcement of child maintenance orders? Give examples of instruments which have taken these different approaches.

         

         

         


  11. SEMINAR 11 – INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION 12 items
    1. Essential Reading 6 items
      1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

        Book Essential See: paras 14-81 to 14-90

      2. The law relating to parent and child in Scotland - Kenneth McK. Norrie 2013

        Book Essential See: paras 21.23 to 21.30, 22.23, 22.34 to 22.70

      3. Private international law - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy, A. E. Anton 2011

        Book Essential See: paras 17.148 – 17.151

      4. Cheshire, North & Fawcett private international law 2017

        Book Essential See: pp. 1210 - 1213

    2. Further Reading 5 items
      1. Private international law - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy, A. E. Anton 2011

        Book  See: paras 17.125 – 17.147 & 17.152 – 17.161

      2. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws - Albert Venn Dicey, J. H. C. Morris 2012

        Book  See: paras 20-093 to 20-134

      3. Inter-country Adoption from a Southern and Eastern African perspective - Julia Sloth-Nielsen, Benyam D. Mezmur, Belinda van Heerden March 2010

        Article 

    3. Questions 1 item
      1.    1.   In the case of R (Thomson & Ors) v SSES [2006] 1 FLR 175 at 180, Munby J noted the terms of Recommendation 1443(2000) (International Adoption: respecting children's rights) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where the Assembly expressed "its fierce opposition to: 'the current transformation of international adoption into nothing short of a market regulated by the capitalist laws of supply and demand, and characterized by a one-way flow of children from poor states or states in transition to developed countries'. It drew attention to the fact that: 'In many cases, receiving countries perpetuate misleading notions about children's circumstances in their countries of origin and a stubbornly prejudiced belief in the advantages for a foreign child of being adopted and living in a rich country' ". What issues, and potential dangers, are raised by intercountry adoption?

         

           2.   Describe the operation of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (1993).

         

           3.   Identify the key issues which arise with regard to the recognition of foreign (non-Convention) adoptions.

         

           4.   It has been suggested that where an adoption order is applied for in respect of a child domiciled abroad, "to refer exclusively to the law of the forum would be contrary to principle and often prejudicial to the well-being of the child" (Cheshire, North & Fawcett, Private International Law, 15th edn. (2017), p. 1210). Do you agree?

  12. SEMINAR 12 – CROSS-BORDER SURROGACY 18 items
    1. Essential Reading 15 items
      1. Books and Articles 5 items
        1. International surrogacy arrangements: legal regulation at the international level - Katarina Trimmings, P. R. Beaumont 2013

          Book Essential See: Chapter 23: UK Report and Chapter 26: A Possible Future Instrument on International Surrogacy Arrangements

      2. Webpages 5 items
        1. A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States 2013

          Document Essential See: Introduction (p. 9 et seq). and Carruthers, J. M. & Crawford, E. B., Chapter 4: Legal Analysis: Private International Law (pp. 159 – 191)

        2. Surrogacy - Law Commission

          Webpage Essential

        3. Surrogacy - Scottish Law Commission

          Webpage Essential

      3. Legislation 4 items
      4. Case Law 1 item
        1. Re X (Children) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam); [2009] 1 F.L.R. 733

          In re S (Parental Order) [2009] EWHC 2977; [2010] 1 FLR 1156

          Re L (A Child) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam); [2011] Fam.106

          A v P [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam)

          Z v C (Parental Order: Domicile) [2011] EWHC 3181

          Re D (Minors) (Surrogacy) [2012] EWHC 2631 (Fam); [2013] Fam Law 38; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 3135

          Re A (Parental Order: Domicile) (orwise A & B v SA) [2013] EWHC 426 (Fam)

          Re P-M (Parental Order: Payments to Surrogacy Agency) [2013] EWHC 2328 (Fam)

          Re X (A Child) (Parental Order: Time Limit) [2014] EWHC 3135 (Fam)

          R v T [2015] EWFC 22

          AB v CT (Parental Order: Consent of Surrogate Mother) [2015] EWFC 12; [2016] 1 F.L.R. 41; [2015] Fam. Law 643 (Fam Ct)

          Re Z (A Child) (Surrogate Father: Parental Order)[2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam)

          Re JB (A Child) (Surrogacy: Immigration) [2016] EWHC 760 (Fam)

          In re Z (Children) (Foreign Surrogacy: Allocation of Work: Guidance on Parental Order Reports) [2017] 4 WLR 5


    2. Further Reading 2 items
      1. Webpages 2 items
        1. See links to:

           

          -          2018: Report of the September 2018 meeting of the Experts' Group on Parentage / Surrogacy

           

          -          2018: Report of the February 2018 meeting of the Experts' Group on Parentage / Surrogacy

           

          -          2017: Report of the January/February 2017 meeting of the Experts' Group on Parentage / Surrogacy

           

          -          2016: Report of the February 2016 meeting of the Experts' Group on Parentage / Surrogacy

           

          -          Hague Conference Permanent Bureau, The Parentage / Surrogacy Project: An Updating Note (Prel. Doc. No 3A) (February 2015)

           

          -          Hague Conference Permanent Bureau, A Study of Legal Parentage and the Issues arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (Prel. Doc. No 3 C) (March 2014)

           

          -          Hague Conference Permanent Bureau, Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (Gen Affs & Policy: Doc. Prel. No 10) (2012)

           

          -          Hague Conference Permanent Bureau, Private International Law Issues Surrounding the Status of Children, including Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (General Affairs and Policy: Doc. Prel. No 11) (March 2011)

    3. Questions 1 item
      1.  

        1. What legal problems arise from the fact of cross-border surrogacy? What are the international private law dimensions of the subject of surrogacy?

         

        2. Case reviews: speakers, please digest your allocated case(s), giving a c. 6-8 minutes account of the facts, the legal point in issue (focusing on the issue directed below), the decision, and any broader significance contributing to our understanding of the problems in this area of law:

         

        Focus on the '2 applicants' issue

        A v P [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam)

        Re Z (A Child) (Surrogate Father: Parental Order) [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam) [Lisa Ewing]

         

        What is the import of The Draft 'Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Remedial) Order 2018' issued by the Department of Health and Social Care on 19 July 2018?[Amy Bell]

         

        Focus on the 'Time limit' issue

        Re X (A Child) (Parental Order: Time Limit) [2014] EWHC 3135 (Fam) [James Cross]

         

        Focus on the 'Domicile' issue

        Z v C (Parental Order: Domicile) [2011] EWHC 3181 [Ethan Laing]

         

        Focus on the 'Consent' issue

        In re D and another (Children) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2012] EWHC 2631 (Fam); [2013] 1 W.L.R. 3135

        R v T [2015] EWFC 22 

        [Sze Ki Lam]

         

        Focus on the 'Expenses' issue

        Re L (Commercial Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146

        Re P-M (Parental Order: Payments to Surrogacy Agency) [2013] EWHC 2328 (Fam)

        [Lisa McCarron]

         

        3. What model of co-operation between/among countries (states of origin and receiving states) would you support?

         

        4. Is there a need for the articulation of rules and the establishment of international standards legally binding on countries in connection with cross-border surrogacy?

         

        5. Is there a need to impose a system of supervision, to ensure that such standards are observed? If yes, through what agency should this be effected?

         

        6. Should there be European regulation of the subject? What should be the objectives of an EU response?

         

        7. Is there a need for a 'global' international response? If yes, why? If not, why not?

  13. SEMINAR 13 – INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION I 12 items
    1. Essential Reading 6 items
      1. Books and Articles 3 items
        1. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

          Book Essential See: paras 14-48 – 14-64

      2. Legislation 2 items
        1. Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

          Legislation Essential implements the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

        2. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 [2003] OJ L338, 23/12/2003

          Legislation  concerns jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels II bis) (arts. 10 and 11)

      3. SELECT (!) CASE LAW 1 item
        Be selective! Focus on UKHL/UKSC, Inner House and Court of Appeal case law.
        1. 'Wrongful removal'                                                               

          Taylor v Ford 1993 SLT 655                                        

          McCarthy v McCarthy 1994 SLT 743               

          Perrin v Perrin 1995 SLT 81

          KS v MG [2017] CSOH 26

                     

          'Wrongful retention'                                                  

          Re H [1991] 3 All ER 230                                            

          Findlay v Findlay 1994 SLT 709          

          Findlay v Findlay (No 2) 1995 SLT 492

          CM v ER (Inner House, Extra Division) [2017] CSIH 18

          Re P (Children) (Child Abduction: Anticipatory Breach) [2017] EWCA Civ 980

          Re C (Children) (Abduction)[2018] UKSC 8

           


          'Rights of custody'                                                     

          Pirrie v Sawacki 1997 SLT 1160                                  

          Re G (Rights of custody) [2002] 2 FLR 703

          Hunter v Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976

          Re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 A.C. 619

          Re K (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2014] UKSC 29; [2014] A.C. 1401

           

          'Habitual residence'                                                   

          In re J (a minor) (Abduction) [1990] 2 AC 562   [NB part-overruled by In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 4]

          Cameron v Cameron 1996 SLT 306; 1997 SLT 206      

          Mercredi v Chaffe (C-497/10 PPU) [2011] I.L.Pr. 23 (and subsequently [2011] EWCA Civ 272)

          In re L (A Child) (Custody: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) [2013] UKSC 75

          Re LC (Children) (International Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2014] UKSC 1

          In re R (Children) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and ors intervening)[2015] UKSC 35

          CM v ER (Inner House, Extra Division) [2017] CSIH 18

          W v X (C-499/15) [2017] I.L.Pr. 12ECJ (First Chamber), 15 February 2017

          NN v HN [2018] CSOH 56

          Re C (Children) (Abduction)[2018] UKSC 8

           

          Not 1980 Hague Convention cases, but important on child's habitual residence in other contexts

          Proceedings brought by A Case C-523/07 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the ECJ from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) [2009] I.L.Pr. 39

          A v A (Children: Habitual residence)[2013] UKSC 60

          In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 4

          Re J (A Child) (Finland: Habitual Residence) [2017] EWCA Civ 80

          HR v KO (Case C-512/17)

          UD v XB (C-393/18)

           

          Article 12 – settlement                                                                       

          Perrin v Perrin 1995 SLT 81                                       

          Soucie v Soucie 1995 SLT 414              

          Re M (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2008] 1 A.C. 1288

          P v M (also JP v FM) [2014] CSIH 19; 2014 S.C. 518

           

          Article 13(a) – consent and acquiescence                                                                   

          Zenel v Haddow 1993 SLT 975                        

          Re H (minors) (Acquiescence) [1997] 2 All ER 225

          Robertson v Robertson 1998 SLT 468               

          Re P-J (Children) (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2009] EWCA Civ 588

           

          Article 13(b) – grave risk                                                                   

          Macmillan v Macmillan 1989 SLT 350             

          Whitley, Petitioner 1998 Fam. L.R. 7

          Re F (Minor: Abduction) [1995] 3 All ER 641   

          Cameron v Cameron (No 2) 1997 SLT 206                   

          Q, Petitioner 2001 SLT 243

          Re S (Abduction: Custody Rights) [2002] 2 FLR 815; EWCA Civ 908  

          M, Petitioner 2007 S.L.T. 433

          In Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27

          GCMR, Petitioner [2017] CSOH 66

           

          Article 13 – child's objections and sibling relationships                                             

          Marshall v Marshall 1996 SLT 429                                          

          Cameron v Cameron (No 2) 1997 SLT 206                   

          Singh v Singh 1998 SLT 1084                          

          Re M (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2008] 1 A.C. 1288

          H v H 2010 S.L.T. 395

          B, Petitioner [2013] CSOH 187; 2014 Fam. L.R. 41

          H, Petitioner [2014] CSOH 79

          Re A (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2014] EWCA Civ 554 (aka In re KP)

          Re LC (Children) (Child's Objections to Return) [2014] 1 All ER 1181; [2014] UKSC 1

          In re M and others (Children) (Abduction: Child's Objections) [2015] EWCA Civ 26

          Ciccone v Ritchie (No 1) [2016] EWHC 608 (Fam)

           

    2. Further Reading 5 items
      1. Books and Articles 3 items
        1. Additional optional reading, for overview:

        2. The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy 1999

          Book Further

        3. Hague child abduction convention: a critical analysis - Rhona Schuz 2013

          Book Further

      2. Webpages 2 items
    3. Questions 1 item
      1.  

        1. What is the operational structure of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and what are its key provisions?

        2. With reference to the 1980 Hague Convention, examine the meaning, role and significance in the operation of the Convention of the allocated term(s).

         

        Your examination should include a eview of what you consider to be the most important and authoritative cases on the topic, so as to demonstrate how the term in question has been construed and applied by UK courts: - 

         

        a. "wrongful removal", "wrongful retention" and "rights of custody" for the purposes of article 3;
         
        NB. in view of (b), below, please do NOT examine the meaning of "habitual residence".
         
        b. "habitual residence of the child"; 
               
         
        c. "settlement" for the purposes of article 12;
         
         
        d. "consent or subsequent acquiescence in the removal or the retention of the child" for the purposes of article 13; and
         
         
        e. "grave risk … of exposure to physical or psychological harm" or placing the child in an "intolerable situation" for the purposes of article 13.

         

         

         

        3. What part do/should the views of the child play in the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention?
         
         
        4. In its interpretation and application of the 1980 Hague Convention, what is your assessment of the contribution of the House of Lords/ Supreme Court?

         

  14. SEMINAR 14 – INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION II 14 items
    1. Essential Reading 13 items
      1. Books and Articles 10 items
        1. Child Abduction: Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights - Paul Beaumont, Katarina Trimmings, Lara Walker, Jayne Holliday 01/2015

          Article Essential

        2. Private international law - P. R. Beaumont, Peter E. McEleavy, A. E. Anton, WESTLAW (Information retrieval system) 2011

          Book Essential See: paras 17.97 – 17.99.

        3. International private law: a Scots perspective - Elizabeth B. Crawford, Janeen M. Carruthers 2015

          Book  See: paras 14-65 – 14-79

      2. Legislation 2 items
        1. Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

          Legislation Essential implements 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. See: Section 1(1) and 1(2) and Sch 1

        2. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 [2003] OJ L338, 23/12/2003

          Legislation Essential concerns jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels II bis) (arts. 10 and 11)

      3. Case Law 1 item
        1. THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSION

          In re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51[2007] 1 A.C. 619

          Raban v Romania (25437/08) (ECHR) [2011] 1 F.L.R. 1130; [2011] Fam. Law 121

          Neulinger v Switzerland (41615/07) [2011] 1 F.L.R. 122; [2011] 2 F.C.R. 110 

          Sneersone v Italy (1437/09) [2011] 2 F.L.R. 1322; (2013) 57 E.H.R.R. 39; [2011] Fam. Law 1188

          In re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27; [2012] 1 A.C. 144

          G v G 2012 S.L.T. 2

          In the Matter of S (a child) [2012] UKSC 10; [2012] 2 AC 257

          X v Latvia (27853/09) [2014] 1 F.L.R. 1135; (2014) 59 E.H.R.R. 3; [2014] Fam. Law 269

          Povse v Austria (3890/11) [2014] 1 F.L.R. 944; [2014] Fam. Law 31

          SP (Father) v EB (Mother), KP (Through her guardian Mr John Power) [2014] EWHC 3964 (Fam), per Mostyn J at [2]

           

           

          THE ASYLUM DIMENSION

          E v E (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) (also known as FE v YE) [2017] EWHC 2165 (Fam), [2018] Fam. 24

           

           

          NON-CONVENTION ABDUCTIONS ('COMMON LAW' CASES)

           

          Calleja v Calleja 1997 S.L.T. 579

          Re F (A Minor) (Abduction; Jurisdiction) [1990] 3 All E.R. 97:

          Re A (A Minor) (Abduction: Non-Convention Country) [1998] 1 F.L.R. 231

          Re KR (A Child) (Abduction: Forcible Removal by Parents) [1999] 4 All E.R. 954

          Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 A.C. 80

          Re Z (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 1219

          A v N, 2007 GWD 01-2; 2007 Fam. L.R. 43

          Re I (A Child) (Contact Application: Jurisdiction) [2010] 1 All E.R. 445; [2009] UKSC 10

           

           

          UK-Pakistan Consensus on Child Abduction [2003] Fam. Law 199.

          • Also comments at [2004] Fam. Law 359; [2004] Fam. Law 609; and [2006] 1 F.L.R. 5, where it is reported that the Protocol, at least "in spirit", had been used as at that date in 52 cases.

           

          http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Justice/law/17867/fm-children-root/18533/13579/13588/23016

           

          See also:

           

          https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/pakistan-accedes-the-1980-hague-convention-on-the-civil-aspects-of-international-child-abduction#.WnhS165l-Uk

           

    2. Questions 1 item
      1. 1.       What has been the impact of Brussels II bis on the operational structure and key provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention? How does the 1980 Hague Convention interact with article 11 of Brussels II bis? What is the significance of article 11.8?      

         

        2.       Précis of the changes proposed to the rules on international child abduction by the Brussels II bis recasting exercise.  

         

        3.       What will be the impact of Brexit in the area of international child abduction?

         

        4.       Overview of those human rights which may be relevant in an international child abduction case.

         

        5.       With reference to case law (see above, under 'The Human Rights Dimension'), examine the interrelationship between the 1980 Hague Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.

         

        6.       From a child abduction perspective, give a precis of E v E (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) (also known as FE v YE [2017] EWHC 2165 (Fam)) (and see commentary thereon by D Hodson et al, 'Child abduction returns trumped by asylum claims' [2017] IFL 281).

         

         

        7.       According to what legal principles are international child custody disputes arising outside the net of the Hague Convention and BII bis regimes to be determined in UK courts? Specifically, should "Hague principles" be used in "non-Hague" cases?