Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in In the matter of B (a child)  UKSC 4 (on appeal from  EWCA Civ 886). The judgment is available here.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the appellant’s application under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) by a majority of three to two (with Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption dissenting) on the basis that the child (B) remained habitually resident in England on 13 February 2014. Lord Wilson gave the lead judgment.
For the background to the case see paras  to  of the judgment.
Lord Wilson (with whom Lady Hale and Lord Toulson agreed) observed that two consequences flow from the modern international primacy of the concept of a child’s habitual residence:
He added that the present case, however, involved a third aspect of the concept of habitual residence: the circumstances in which a child loses his or her habitual residence (para ). The traditional English law approach to this issue is heavily dependent upon parental intention. In particular, in In re J (A Minor)  2 AC 562, Lord Brandon observed that a person may cease to be habitually resident in a country in a single day if he or she leaves it with a settled intention not to return and settle elsewhere (paras [33-34]).
Lord Wilson noted that the Supreme Court in A v A (Children: Habitual Residence)  UKSC
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Geraldine is Head of LexisPSL Family. She was admitted as a solicitor in 1992 and was in practice for 15 years, most recently as a partner and head of the family team at Hart Brown, a large Surrey firm.
Geraldine writes for Butterworths Family Law Service and is a past editor of the Resolution Review. She has been published in the New Law Journal, the Law Society Gazette and the District Judges’ Bulletin as well as in the national press including the Times and the Telegraph.
When in practice she was a member of the Law Society Family and Children Panels, and an accredited Resolution Specialist with a focus on advanced financial provision and pensions. A past Resolution regional secretary and press officer, Geraldine also contributed chapters to the Resolution publications, International Aspects of Family Law (3rd Edition 2009) and The Modern Family (2012).
0330 161 1234