CASE NAME
KAC v DJC [2013] EWHC 292 (Fam) Family Division, Mostyn J
K v K [2009] EWHC 1876 (Fam) Family Division, Ryder J
Re R (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [2004] 1 FLR 216 Family Division, Munby J
Wermuth v Wermuth (No 1) [2003] 1 FLR 1022 Family Division, Bracewell J Wermuth v Wermuth (No 2) [2003] 1 FLR 1029 Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Latham and Lawrence Collins LJJ
Wehmeyer v Wehmeyer [2001] 2 FLR 84 Chancery Division, Mr Registrar James
Re L (Children) (Abduction: Declaration) [2001] 2 FLR 1
Buchanan v Milton [1999] EWHC B9 (Fam); [1999] 2 FLR 844 Family Division, Hale J
Re W; Re B (Child Abduction: Unmarried Father) [1998] 2 FLR 146 Family Division, Hale J
Re O (Abduction: Consent and Acquiescence) [1997] 1 FLR 924 Family Division, Bennett J
Re B (A Minor) (Abduction) [1994] 2 FLR 249 Court of Appeal, Staughton and Waite LJJ (Peter Gibson LJ dissenting)
Re A (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1992] 2 FLR 14 Court of Appeal, Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR and Stuart-Smith LJ (Balcombe LJ dissenting)
V v B (A Minor) (Abduction) [1991] 1 FLR 266 Family Division, Sir Stephen Brown P
OUTCOME
David Truex gave expert evidence on Australian visa laws in an abduction/relocation case. Mostyn J said: "On reading the papers I realised that the evidence about the father’s immigration status in Australia was far from clear and right at the start of the case I suggested that contact be made with Mr David Truex of Taylor Hampton solicitors, who is well-known as being qualified in both England and Australia. Astonishingly, overnight he produced a full witness statement which incorporated the opinion of two specialist Australian immigration lawyers. Mr Truex’s evidence was agreed. I am very grateful for the extremely efficient and thorough service which he provided to the parties at very short notice." www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/292.html
Divorce Jurisdiction. The wife succeeded in obtaining a decree nisi on the jurisdictional basis of the husband's domicile in England notwithstanding that the couple had not lived in England since 1987. The husband's assertion that he had adopted an Australian domicile of choice was not established on the evidence, which included his failure to assert Australian domicile on his financial application in the Family Court of Australia.
Hague Convention. Mother and one year old child ordered to return from England to Germany, Munby J expressing “considerable reluctance” at having to make the order only because the father had “the letter of the law on his side”. The Judge commented “if this was a jurisdiction in which I had any discretion I suspect very strongly indeed that I would exercise my discretion against the father”. After only 5 weeks in Germany the German Court allowed the mother and baby to return to the family home in England. Under the amended Brussels II Regulation 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis),which came into effect throughout the European Union (except Denmark) on 1 March 2005, judges now have a wider discretion in Hague Abduction Convention cases, allowing them to place greater emphasis on the welfare of the child. Under the amended law, a case similar to Re R would probably be decided differently today. This is likely to remain the case when Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels II bis Recast) comes into effect throughout the European Union (except Denmark) on 1 August 2022.
These were the first two reported cases dealing with the original Brussels II Regulation 1347/2000 on divorce jurisdiction (the precursor to the current Brussels II bis Regulation 2201/2003). They established that: 1. where divorce proceedings are current in two jurisdictions to which the Brussels II Regulation applies, the proceedings in the court first seised presumptively with jurisdiction shall determine the validity of those proceedings without interference from the court second seised. 2. maintenance pending suit cannot be ordered under the Brussels I Regulation 44/2001.
Held that English bankruptcy proceedings could not be used to enforce German maintenance arrears, whether or not the German order was registered in England. However, when the husband moved to Scotland bankruptcy proceedings there were successful in getting him to pay up. Bankruptcy can be used to enforce maintenance in Scotland, Germany, Sweden, Australia and elsewhere but not in England and Wales.
Hague Convention. Successful application under Article 15 for a declaration of wrongful removal to facilitate the return of the children from Germany to England.
Dispute between the natural mother of a deceased Australian Aboriginal man and the deceased’s daughter (by her litigation friends) over whether to bury his remains in Australia or in England. Application by natural mother under s116 Supreme Court Act 1981 to displace deceased’s daughter as administratrix and substitute herself so she could arrange burial in Australia in accordance with Aboriginal custom. The deceased had been surrendered for adoption by his then 18-year-old mother in Queensland, under circumstances which were alleged to amount to a ‘stolen generation’ case, and taken to England by his adoptive parents. Rejecting the ‘stolen generation’ argument, Hale J found that there were no ‘special circumstances’ under 116 and dismissed the application. The deceased was buried in England.
Hague Convention. Held that the mother's removal of the children from England to Australia was wrongful as the father's application for a parental responsibility order was pending. This case extended the protection of children from abduction.
Hague Convention. The father failed in his application to have child returned to Australia. The day before the child and mother travelled to England, he had signed a document consenting to the move. His assertion of duress was rejected by the Judge.
Hague Convention. Appeal against order for return of children to Australia dismissed. David Truex's expert evidence as to "rights of custody" under Western Australian law was accepted by the majority of a Court of Appeal.
Hague Convention. Application for return of child to Australia refused. David Truex gave expert evidence on Australian law as to the likelihood of a successful application by the mother in Australia for an Order allowing her and the child to return permanently to England to live. The case is reported a number of times in respect of several visits by the parties to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Note: This case may be decided differently today as the English law relating to acquiescence has substantially developed (see Re H (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1997] 1 FLR 872 (House of Lords). Also, the Family Court of Australia has decided that it will now be more difficult than previously to obtain the Court's permission to move children from Australia to the United Kingdom to live. (see R v R (1998) FLC 92-820). The High Court of Australia, however, has stressed that each case must be decided on its merits (AMS v AIF; AIF v AMS (1999) FLC 92-852.
Hague Convention. Child returned to Australia after expert evidence from David Truex that the normal injunctive relief was available in the courts in Australia which would protect the parties in a disputed situation.
A legal service delivered with empathy, expertise and excellence!
Oscar Smith was initially referred by David Truex of Expatriate law. Oscar along with Antonia church have worked on my case since 2023. Oscar, is a remarkable lawyer who demonstrates vast knowledge in the niche field of international law, steadfastness in achieving goals and compassion towards his client and helped my son and I relocate back home to Australia. Oscar and Antonia, continue to work on my case, attend hearings on my behalf and have proved borders and timezone barriers can be overcome with
efficient and timely communication. Overall, Expatriate law as a firm provide intelligent and clear advice to their clients enveloped in a humanistic approach. Thankyou Oscar, David, Antonia and Expatriate law for giving my son and I a fair chance at life and for all the wins in the past and in the future!
Lawyer named in this review: David Truex
Was this review helpful? Yes
Beatrice Ermolin
Beatrice Ermolin assisted David Truex during my complex, two year financial settlement battle. She was extremely professional, thorough and went out of her way to keep me informed of all developments in the case. Beatrice reassured me at times when I needed it and I know she has a very successful career ahead of her. Thank you so much Beatrice.
Lawyer named in this review: David Truex
Was this review helpful? Yes
International Financial Settlement
David has worked tirelessly for two years on my very complex and drawn out divorce and subsequent financial settlement battle. The successful outcome could never have been reached without David's vast knowledge of UK family law and his morale boosting support as I faltered. Thank you David for everything!
Lawyer named in this review: David Truex
Was this review helpful? Yes
Excellent and realistic advice
Was provided with very sensible, comprehensive and very realistic legal advice from Mr David Truex of Expatriate Law regarding a Child Support Agency historical debt (20 years old!). My circumstances required legal knowledge in both UK and Australian jurisdictions and Mr Truex’s experience and knowledge covered all options for my situation. Highly recommended and very professional dealings.
Lawyer named in this review: David Truex
Was this review helpful? Yes