Read the full judgment text of CAMP 67/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 July 2018 before Hon Lam VP and B Chu J.
Family law – Child relocation – Leave to appeal – Welfare of child paramount – SWO recommendation – Fresh evidence – Leave refused – Costs awarded – The Petitioner mother sought leave to appeal against an order allowing the Respondent father to permanently remove their 6-year-old son to Australia. The Court clarified that the only principle from Payne v Payne is the paramountcy of the child's welfare, with other factors being guidance. The Judge did not misapply legal principles and conducted a holistic balancing exercise. The Judge was not bound to accept the SWO's assessment and gave cogent reasons for departing from it. The new evidence regarding access disputes was not helpful as communication issues were mutual and the mother had not taken steps to obtain a mirror order in Australia. Leave to appeal refused. Mother ordered to pay Father's costs of $200,000 in lieu of taxed costs.
Legal issues: Ground (1)—application of the legal principles · Ground 2—Failure to give due consideration to the SWO’s recommendation · Ground (3)—The father being obstructive to access
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; Mother ordered to pay Father's costs
Cited by 28 cases · Cites 3 cases