Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MR T GUPTA KC and MS A CAMERON-DOUGLAS (instructed by The International Family Law Group LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR M JARMAN KC and MR M BASI (instructed by DHM Stallard) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent. MR C HAMES KC and MS C BAKER (instructed by Goodman Ray) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent. ____________________
The facts in Re B involved a 15-year-old young person who had agreed to return to Canada and, as a consequence, all parties made agreed a consent order for the child to be returned to Canada. The child then changed his mind in relation to that and that is what constituted the basis upon which it was said the original return order should be set aside.
He then went on at the end of that paragraph to refer to the well-trodden path of para.8 of what Baroness Hale said in Re M, namely:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.