SH (A Child)

The mother failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The grounds of appeal did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success or any compelling reason to grant permission. The Recorder's evaluation of the evidence and the child's welfare was justified and supported by the material before her. There was no procedural unfairness or error warranting intervention.

Parties: Applicant (mother): AB; First Respondent (father): CD; Second Respondent (subject Child): SH
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 June 2020
Procedural Posture: Family Law Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal
Outcome: Permission to appeal refused; extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics: Child Arrangements, Appeal Procedure, Extension of Time, Welfare of the Child

Family Law Child Arrangements Appeal Procedure Extension of Time Welfare of the Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicant (mother)

First Respondent (father)

Second Respondent (subject Child)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be excused and an extension of time granted
2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on the grounds advanced by the mother
3 Whether the Recorder's evaluation of the child's welfare and the weight given to evidence was erroneous or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; extension of time to appeal refused.