Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

The issue of jurisdiction should be addressed at the outset of the proceedings and dealt with in a procedurally appropriate manner.

Inherent and statutory jurisdiction

Statutory jurisdiction is found in a wide range of domestic legislation including the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), the Children Act 1989 and the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973).

Most aspects of family law are governed by domestic statute and statutory instruments together with various Hague Conventions. See practice Note: Hague Conventions—toolkit for family practitioners. However, there remain cases where recourse will be made to the inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction is not confined to the wardship jurisdiction, thus it is not necessary for a child to be a ward of court before the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. The procedure in relation to wardship proceedings is governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955. In relation to children proceedings the High Court inherent jurisdiction derives from the Royal Prerogative, as parens patriae, ie to take care of those who are not able to take care of themselves.

See

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.