In HF, KF and LF (Children) (Habitual Residence), the High Court considered the operation of Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention where children are removed to non-contracting states. In a judgment handed down by David Rees KC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) the court considered jurisdiction under its inherent powers and under the Children Act 1989 by reference to Convention.
MF and FF are the parents of three children: HF (7), KF (5) and LF (4). At the time of the hearing, the children were in Dubai with their father. The mother applied for the summary return of the children, with the central issue being whether the court of England and Wales had jurisdiction. The father asserted that the children were habitually resident outside the jurisdiction.
The father is a dual British and Pakistani national raised in the UK. The mother is a Pakistani national, who travelled to the UK on a spousal visa after their marriage in 2016. By 2023, the father was working in Pakistan, with the mother and children living in the UK. The father then took a job in Dubai, and in June 2023 the mother and children joined him. The parties disputed whether this was a temporary visit or permanent relocation. Return air tickets had been purchased, and the eldest was not permanently withdrawn from school.
The family subsequently travelled to Pakistan, where events were contested. The mother and children were taken from Islamabad to a remote village. The mother was returned to Islamabad on 1 June 2024, after which the father returned to Dubai with the children but without his wife. He asserted this was consensual, but the mother has had no contact with the children since that date.
Proceedings were issued in September 2024, while the mother was in Pakistan, stranded there, she claimed, by the father. A C66 application was filed indicating she did not know her children’s whereabouts. The mother contacted UK police and her MP to trace the children. The father later returned to Pakistan with the children before returning with them to Dubai in January 2025. Two of the children attend school there and hold residence permits as dependants under the father’s investor visa.
After returning to the UK in early 2025, the mother issued a C2 application seeking return orders. A location order was made in March 2025, leading to service on the father in April 2025 and the October 2025 hearing.
The court considered jurisdiction under its inherent powers and under the Children Act 1989 by reference to the 1996 Hague Convention. Neither the UAE nor Pakistan are parties to the Convention, but the court heard submissions on the application of Article 7, finding that it may apply where a child has been wrongfully removed to a non-contracting state.
The judge made findings of fact on the dates and evidence put before him, finding significant elements of the father’s evidence to be unreliable and inconsistent but the mother’s account to be largely credible.
“Although there were elements of the mother’s oral evidence which went beyond her witness statements, and there were issues upon which her evidence changed… I consider that the general account provided by the mother broadly represents what actually took place,” the Rees KC noted in the judgment.
“I am satisfied that when the mother and children travelled to Dubai, there was no plan that this should be anything other than a short holiday. Return flights to the UK were booked; no notice was given to the eldest child’s school in the UK that she would be leaving permanently; there is no evidence of anyone saying a final goodbye to friends or family; possessions were left behind in the UK; and no permanent accommodation had been arranged in Dubai for when the mother and children arrived.”
Applying the test from Re F (A Child) (Habitual Residence) [2025] EWCA Civ 911 considering where the children’s integration, schooling, the location of possessions, and intention of parents, particularly of the primary carer, the father was found not to have discharged the burden of proving a change of habitual residence at any of the relevant dates as per SA v AA [2023] EWHC 2016 (Fam).
Summing up, Rees KC said:
“I am satisfied that England and Wales is the appropriate forum for the determination of this dispute and have had regard to the list of factors identified by Williams J in Re K (A Child) (Stranding: Forum Conveniens: anti-suit Injunction) [2019] 4 WLR 38 at [35]. The burden is on the father to establish that Dubai is clearly the convenient forum for the determination of this dispute. However, he has not provided any evidence as to the Dubai legal system, its approach to the determination of return applications in respect of foreign families of the Muslim faith, or the availability of legal representation or legal aid there.
“Although the children are currently living in Dubai and are now habitually resident there, the English courts are already seized of these proceedings and have been for over a year. By contrast no proceedings have yet been issued in Dubai. As the hearing before me has demonstrated, both parties are able to participate fully in the legal process in England and Wales and have legal representation available to them. The mother is here, and the father is a British national and therefore able to freely enter the UK (by contrast the mother would appear to be limited to spending no more than 1 month at a time in Dubai). This is a case where the children had lived in England for their whole lives prior to the events that have led to these proceedings and they have strong connections with this jurisdiction.
“Taking all of these matters into account I am not satisfied that the father has established that Dubai would clearly be the appropriate forum for this dispute. Indeed, I am satisfied that England and Wales is the appropriate forum and therefore decline to stay these proceedings on forum conveniens grounds.”
The mother may now proceed with her application for a return order, and parties were invited to agree a draft direction order to list the matter.
HF, KF and LF (Children) (Habitual Residence) [2025] EWHC 3306 (Fam)
