Family Law

Princess Haya’s legal battle seeking protection for herself and her child against the Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, continues.

The case initially heard in the Family Court Division of the High Court in London at the end of July, has been set to be heard further in the English courts during the week commencing 11 November 2019.  

The Princess has sought a forced marriage protection order for one of her children together with a non-molestation order and a wardship order, the latter of which it is said Sheikh Mohammed is contesting who in turn is seeking the summary return of their two children to Dubai. 

Would the Sheikh have had a more powerful case had he had the power of The Hague Convention on his side?

It is believed that the initial application made by the Sheikh may have been filed in Dubai before being transferred to the High Court in London. 

The United Arab Emirates are not a party of the multilateral treaty known as the Hague Child Abduction Convention (the Hague Convention) which if it were, may have had a drastic impact on how this case was dealt with.

The Hague Convention’s primary aim is to preserve child arrangements which were in force immediately before the supposedly wrongful removal or retention was made. The convention does not alter any basic human rights but regulates which country has the jurisdiction to make the decision as to where the child is habitually resident. The Hague Convention then ultimately requires a return of the children to that country. As Dubai is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention, the case will be heard under English law. In fact within the MENA region only Iraq, Israel, Morocco and Tunisia are currently Hague signatories therefore the Sheikh will have to rely on the discretion of the High Court in his request for an order of the summary return of the children to Dubai. It goes without saying that the Sheikh would have been much assisted by the power of the Hague Convention were his country a signatory to it. 

Wardship order 

Under its inherent jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to ensure a child is protected. Should a wardship order be made, the child who is the subject of the order will become a 'ward of the court' which in effect results in the court becoming the legal guardian of the child. This puts the court in the position where it takes over the Parental Responsibility from the parents. Although this is an unusual step in domestic cases, this is a common step taken in disputes containing an international element and is an order which can only be made in the High Court. Interestingly, a child who is a ward of the court may not be removed from England and Wales without the court's permission and therefore in this case, would ultimately prevent the Sheikh from taking the children out of the jurisdiction without the court’s permission.

The other orders sought by the Princess:

A forced marriage protection order (FMPO)

There are three classes of person who are able to apply for an FMPO, and these are:

• 'have regard to all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the person to be protected' (section 63A(2), FLA 1996)
• 'consider the wishes and feelings of the person to be protected, so far as they are ascertainable and it is appropriate to do so in light of that person’s age and understanding' (section 63A(3) FLA 1996).

Non-molestation order

Conclusion