Can the High Court order the return of a child from a 1980 Hague Convention country under the inherent jurisdiction? – Ben Woolstencroft in T v P [2026] EWHC 2242 (Fam)
7th Sep 2026 | Cases
The High Court has considered the use of its inherent jurisdiction to seek the return of a child from Russia, a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention, where the Convention mechanism was not readily available in practice in the current geopolitical circumstances.
In T v P [2026] EWHC 2242 (Fam), Ben Woolstencroft, instructed by Goodman Ray, represented the applicant father in proceedings concerning his two-year-old son, Y. Following an agreed family visit to Russia, the mother did not return to England with Y. The father sought declarations that Y had been wrongfully retained in Russia and remained habitually resident in England, together with an order for his return to England under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The Court determined that Y remained habitually resident in England and that he had been wrongfully retained in Russia. The Court also considered the practical difficulties in pursuing the ordinary 1980 Hague Convention return mechanism in Russia in the context of the current geopolitical climate.
This case is of particular interest in considering the circumstances in which the English High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order the return of a child from a State which is itself a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention, where the Convention mechanism is not providing a readily available or effective route to a determination of the return application.
The question of whether Y should be returned to England under the inherent jurisdiction was adjourned for determination at a subsequent hearing.
