Example sentences of "laid [adv prt] by the convention " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Since a Convention rule covering an issue displaces the need for resort to the conflicts of laws whilst the non-coverage of an issue necessitates recourse to the applicable law as determined by the conflicts rules of the forum , it may become necessary to decide whether an issue on which the Convention contains no express provision is covered by implication , applying any canons of interpretation laid down by the Convention itself , and if not , whether recourse is to be had to general conflict-of-laws rules or to any particular conflict rules laid down by the Convention . |
| 2 | Since a Convention rule covering an issue displaces the need for resort to the conflicts of laws whilst the non-coverage of an issue necessitates recourse to the applicable law as determined by the conflicts rules of the forum , it may become necessary to decide whether an issue on which the Convention contains no express provision is covered by implication , applying any canons of interpretation laid down by the Convention itself , and if not , whether recourse is to be had to general conflict-of-laws rules or to any particular conflict rules laid down by the Convention . |
| 3 | By notice of appeal dated 22 April 1992 the father appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that any consideration of the children 's welfare in the context of a judicial discretion under article 13 ( a ) of the Convention was relevant only as a material factor if it met the test of placing the children in an ‘ intolerable situation ’ under article 13 ( b ) ; ( 2 ) the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for welfare laid down by the Convention itself ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that in the context of the exercise of the discretion permitted by article 13 ( a ) the court was limited to a consideration of the nature and quality of the father 's acquiescence ( as found by the Court of Appeal ) ; ( 4 ) in the premises , despite her acknowledgment that the exercise of her discretion had to be seen in the context of the Convention , the judge exercised a discretion based on a welfare test appropriate to wardship proceedings ; ( 5 ) the judge was further in error as a matter of law in not perceiving as the starting point for the exercise of her discretion the proposition that under the Convention the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the state from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 6 ) the judge , having found that on the ability to determine the issue between the parents there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England , was wrong not to conclude that as a consequence the mother had failed to displace the fundamental premise of the Convention that the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the country from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 7 ) the judge also misdirected herself when considering which court should decide the future of the children ( a ) by applying considerations more appropriate to the doctrine of forum conveniens and ( b ) by having regard to the likely outcome of the hearing in that court contrary to the principles set out in In re F. ( A Minor ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 25 ; ( 8 ) in the alternative , if the judge was right to apply the forum conveniens approach , she failed to have regard to the following facts and matters : ( a ) that the parties were married in Australia ; ( b ) that the parties had spent the majority of their married life in Australia ; ( c ) that the children were born in Australia and were Australian citizens ; ( d ) that the children had spent the majority of their lives in Australia ; ( e ) the matters referred to in ground ( 9 ) ; ( 9 ) in any event on the facts the judge was wrong to find that there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England as fora for deciding the children 's future ; ( 11 ) the judge was wrong on the facts to find that there had been a change in the circumstances to which the mother would be returning in Australia given the findings made by Thorpe J. that ( a ) the former matrimonial home was to be sold ; ( b ) it would be unavailable for occupation by the mother and the children after 7 February 1992 ; and ( c ) there would be no financial support for the mother other than state benefits : matters which neither Thorpe J. nor the Court of Appeal found amounted to ‘ an intolerable situation . ’ |
| 4 | He further contends by ground ( 2 ) of his notice of appeal that the failure of the judge to perceive the limitations imposed on her discretion in the context of the Convention led her to reject the proposition that the elements necessary to the exercise of that discretion have to exist within the framework laid down by the Convention itself . |
| 5 | Thus her conclusion that ‘ Once the discretion arises it is for the court to conduct the necessary balancing exercise between what would otherwise be required by the Convention and the interests of the children ’ is wrong in law and fatal to a proper exercise of a discretion under the Convention because it predicates that matters relating to the welfare of children falling outside the ambit of the criteria laid down by the Convention itself are relevant to the exercise of the discretion . |
| 6 | Accordingly the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for ‘ welfare ’ laid down by the Convention itself . |
| 7 | In his well argued submissions Mr. Wall submitted that the discretion conferred on the court by article 13 ( a ) of the Convention is a discretion to be exercised ( a ) within the context of the purpose and principles laid down by the Convention and ( b ) by applying the criteria contained within the Convention itself , and that it is accordingly not a discretion to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the court in wardship or under the Children Act 1989 so as to act in what the court perceives to be the best interests of the child . |
| 8 | But where local law is absent or ambiguous , and British courts have the opportunity to shape the law according to their notion of an appropriate public policy , they should give effect to the policy laid down by the Convention . |