SYNOPSIS

Dispute Resolution Synopsis

Summary of Material Facts

The respondent is the ambassador of New Zealand in London. She is Muslim and has two children Shakira and Zahid, she was posted to London due to her job posting there. The family lived peacefully in London. But when UK also became the ally of USA in the war on terror, the conditions in UK deteriorated. Similarly, there were many restrictions for the Muslims as the students were not allowed to wear Hijab at the school. Furthermore, the anti- Muslim attitude also increased in the UK as the people in the UK considered the UK based Muslims responsible for all the suicide attacks. Similarly, one of the members of the Bhutto family naming Raza was also shot dead in suspicion by the authorities that also left deep impact over the children. Due to all this the children were sent to New Zealand along with their father for the period of three months holidays. The children enjoyed the new environment and could also practice their religion freely. Mr. Tareef also got peace of mind and considered that her children were safe there. Similarly, , later on, her husband called her and asked her to come back to New Zealand as the children are happy and can live with complete religious freedom. In reply she told him that she is completely committed to her job and that she will not come to New Zealand at any cost. His husband became very angry and told her that he, along with his children will live there whether she comes or not. The respondent after this conversation on the phone initiated the proceedings under the care of children act 2004 for the return of Shakira and Zahid to London in the family court.

Procedural History

In the family court this appeal was rejected by the judge Puzzle as he believed that the return of children to London will affect them psychologically and will place them in the intolerable condition. Similarly, MR. Puzzle also claimed that ss 15 of the New Zealand bill of rights act 1990 do not allow this. However, the high court gave verdict in the favor of the respondent and against the Judge Puzzle and ordered that the children should be returned to London. Similarly, it also maintained that the current facts fall short for the establishment of a defense under ss 106 (1) (c) and (e) of the care of the children act 2004. Furthermore, the case was referred to the Moot Supreme Court by the court of appeal due to its high public importance. The moot Supreme Court has granted leave to Tareef appeal that whether the family court was correct in upholding the a defense to Shakira and Zahid 's return under the s 106 (1) c and s 106 (1) (e) of the care of the children act , 2004. Now the case will be decided by the supreme court of the New Zealand. In this case the decisions of the high court as well as ...