S and T, Re (Children: Return to Italy) (No.2)

The Applicant did not appear and was not represented Mr Mazzone (employed by Child and Child) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 3 July 2025 ____________________

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

" Next, I must deal with the law relating to an application to set aside an order under the 1980 Convention . I propose, first, to deal with the authorities and the rules. After this, I deal with the process which I suggest should be adopted�including, I emphasise, the approach which the court should take at each stage of the process, from the making of the set aside application to the rehearing of the substantive application under the 1980 Convention.

Although there is some jurisprudential history on the question of whether/when the court can set aside an order under the 1980 Convention, I do not think it is necessary to go back further than�Re W (Abduction: Setting Aside Return Order)� [2019] 1 FLR 400 �in which I gave the lead judgment. This is not to elevate this decision above the other, earlier, cases to which we were referred but because the insertion of r.12.52A into the FPR 2010 has resolved the question of whether there is jurisdiction to set aside such an order.

In�Re W, I made the following observations: the first, in the context of whether the court has a set aside power: