Accessibility Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content Skip to Search Skip to Site Map

Articles for the keyword(s) "Habitual residence: matter of fact"

"Conflict of Laws: Harvey v Harvey; K v P; P v Secretary for Justice"

Tony Angelo, 2004

This brief note deals with the interpretation of habitual residence as a matter of fact within the context of international child abduction. More specifically, the author refers to the impact of shuttle custody agreements on the determination of a child’s habitual residence.

^ Top of page

“Third (Anglo-Common Law) Countries and Rome II: Dilemma or Deliverance”

Elsabe Schoeman, 2011

The Rome II Regulation deals with choice of law in tort. The article examines the value of this Regulation vis-à-vis third (non-EU Anglo-Common law) countries, analysing the unique EU environment and the continuous movement towards uniformity and certainty. The author discusses the general choice of law regime laid down in Article 4 of the Regulation and applies it to two famous Anglo-Common law cases: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd and Harding v Wealands, concluding that these cases would probably have been decided differently under Rome II. The article concludes that Rome II may indeed have comparative value for these third countries and that its importance should not be underestimated.

^ Top of page

"Some Moot Points on the 1980 Hague Convention"

Nigel Lowe, 2015

The author considers three aspects of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction that may be problematic and in need of reform. One challenge is where the child has been removed from a contracting state in accordance with a Convention ruling, and the ruling is reversed on appeal. The author examines the ability and obligations of contracting states to make new return orders in response to such appellate rulings. The author then examines difficulties in determining the child’s place of habitual residence, particularly regarding newborn children. Finally, the author considers the ability of contracting states to discharge return orders that have not been enforced, and the circumstances in which they should do so.