[2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam)

I am conscious of the importance of the issue as to the extent to which the Australian courts would enforce undertakings given to the English court or mirror those undertakings with orders of its own as discussed in Re T (Abduction: Protective Measures: Agreement to Return) per Cobb J (as he then was). I therefore asked counsel to provide me with further detail of what the process is in Australia for recognition and enforcement under the 1996 Hague Convention of any English orders made or undertakings given as part of a return order (for instance non-molestation or financial provision for M on return) and whether the parties’ positions as to what they sought differed in this regard.

In light of the information that there was thereafter provided to F’s solicitors from an Australian lawyer and ICACU it was agreed between counsel that the undertakings/protective measures should be orders.

On M’s behalf it was sought for the order to be registered prior to M and A’s return to Australia. It was said to be essential that the order is recognised and enforceable to provide her with the necessary protection should the court order a return.  On F’s behalf it was said he was not opposed to registration of the order prior to a return but that this was not necessary. F did not want anything potentially to impact entry (although it was accepted there no evidence about this either way). F would also not wish the registration process to delay any return.