E v E (Article 19 and Seiesing BIIa)

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO. (a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 [email protected] ____________________

MRS. R. BAILEY-HARRIS (instructed by Paradigm Family Law) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR. S. LEECH QC (instructed by Clarion Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ____________________

In para.12, he reiterates his view that, once the jurisdiction of the court first seised has been established, then any process in this (second) jurisdiction should be dismissed, again drawing a distinction between deferring and declining.

I interpolate that what the CJEU was stating, in effect, was that Art.19 has no impact on the rules as to seising, as set out in Art.16.

I have already referred to the fact that the court, in the course of its judgment, refers to the English court, when it dismissed the wife's first petition, as having "declined" jurisdiction.