What is the test for jurisdiction to order a child in a different country?

And Sachs, J. in Harben v. Harben [1957] 1 WLR 261, 101 Sol J 150, said at p. 265: “As is pointed out in the authorities, the court can act also irrespective of the fact that the courts of the country where the child is located may also have jurisdiction to make an order. It assumes that the other court will act in a reasonable manner both as to whether or not it chooses to make an order and as to what order it should make; and every effort is put forth on all sides to ensure that there should be no divergence between the line taken by this court and the line either taken or likely to be taken by the other court. Whether or not this court makes an order in relation to a child outside the jurisdiction depends on the particular facts of the case, but, of course, those facts have to be really exceptional before an order is made. The very essence of a case being exceptional is that one is unlikely to find a precisely parallel set of facts in some other reported authority; and the absence of some specific element of fact in those previous cases which have got into the books does not much assist the court to decide whether the facts in the particular matter before it are or are not exceptional.”

Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that such special and exceptional circumstances exist in this application, such being the actions of the defendant in so obtaining possession of Paul by a ruse and taking him to another jurisdiction, such actions being a deliberate breach of the terms of the separation agreement. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of Harben v. Harben, supra, and suggests that I should therefore make an order giving the custody of Paul to his father.