BabelCite

Tang Lau Wai Chun v. Tang Fung Fat

Read the full judgment text of CACV 161/1985 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

1. This is an appeal against an order of H. H. Judge Wane upon an application to define the "reasonable access" granted pursuant to an order made on 27th September 1985. We are told that the judge declined jurisdiction to make an order defining access on the ground that an appeal had been lodged against the order granting custody to the Respondent. With respect to the learned judge I do not think that the fact that an appeal had been lodged deprived him of jurisdiction. It is alleged that reason

Case No.CACV 161/1985
Court
Court of Appeal
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000161/1985

1N THE COURT OF APPEAL

1985, Nos. 142 & 161

(Civil)

BETWEEN:

TANG LAU WAI CHUN Petitioner

and
TANG FUNG FAT Respondent

_____________

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Cons & Fuad, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 5th November 1985

Date of Judgment: 5th November 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. This is an appeal against an order of H. H. Judge Wane upon an application to define the "reasonable access" granted pursuant to an order made on 27th September 1985. We are told that the judge declined jurisdiction to make an order defining access on the ground that an appeal had been lodged against the order granting custody to the Respondent. With respect to the learned judge I do not think that the fact that an appeal had been lodged deprived him of jurisdiction. It is alleged that reasonable access has not been given pursuant to the order. That order must necessarily remain in force until the hearing of the appeal against the custody order unless it is varied before that, and it is essential now that difficulties have arisen that the parties should know what reasonable access means. They have not previously been able to agree, but it would be wrong that the mother should, in effect, be deprived of access until the hearing of the custody appeal. Therefore I think the judge had jurisdiction and that this appeal must be allowed.

2. Mr. Payne, for the Petitioner, has asked us not to remit the case to the trial judge for him to consider the application and has asked us to define the periods of access. Happily the parties are now able to agree and I think it is appropriate hat we should define the access. I would therefore make an order in these terms:

By consent pending the hearing of the appeal against the custody order or until further order of this court the Petitioner to have staying access from 12 noon on Saturday 9th November to 4 p.m. on Saturday 10th November and thereafter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays between those times and access on Saturday 16th November, and thereafter on alternate Saturdays, from 12 noon to 6 p.m.

Cons, J. A.:

3. I agree entirely with my Lord and would only suggest subject to Mr. Payne's comments that there be no order as to costs on this appeal save one for Legal Aid taxation.

Fuad, J. A.:

4. I also agree.

5th November 1985

Representation:

Payne for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.