B v D

Tape Transcription by John Larking Verbatim Reporters Suite 91 Temple Chambers, 3 - 7 Temple Avenue, London EC4Y OHP Telephone 020 7404 7464

MR SHARAZ AHMED (instructed by Knights Solicitors) appeared on behalf of THE APPLICANT MOTHER MR EDWARD DEVEREUX (instructed by Dawson Cornwell) appeared on behalf of THE RESPONDENT FATHER Hearing dates: 17th, 18th and 22nd April 2008 ____________________

This is a wardship matter and therefore falls to be dealt with under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

He was there dealing with the conflict between the wardship jurisdiction and the powers of the court under section 34 of the Family Law Act. In Al-Habtoor v Fotheringham [2001] 1 FLR 951 the Court of Appeal set out again the limits on wardship in circumstances where a child had been taken abroad and had become habitually resident in another jurisdiction (the United Arab Emirates). In the leading judgment Thorpe LJ set out the limits, as he perceived them, on the wardship jurisdiction. He said:

That is the classic definition set out in Shah v Barnet London Borough Council [1983] 2 AC 309 , at 343G. All the law requires is that there is a settled purpose, that is not to say that the propositus intends to stay indefinitely. Indeed, his purpose while settled may be for a limited period. Business or profession, employment, health and family, or merely love of the place spring to mind as common reasons for a choice of regular abode. There may well be many others.