When our paths cross again: the Supreme Court's management of related asylum and child abduction claims in G v G

This case note examines how the Supreme Court approached the complex problem of overlapping legal proceedings involving asylum claims and child abduction. It analyses the purposive approach taken by the Supreme Court to the determination of how a child, who has not independently claimed asylum, should be understood to have done so, and the ramifications of this for the child's legal status in any claim for their return under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. It further seeks to address the novel approach by which the Supreme Court dealt with this problem. By formulating draft standard directions for the handling of such cases, the Court brought into focus questions about the limits of the judicial function of promoting good governance.