B (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 19 (21 January 2014)

B (A Child), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 19 (21 January 2014)

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal both orders. The oral reasons given before the rehearing were sufficient, and the delay in providing written reasons did not amount to procedural unfairness or prejudice. The judge's approach to the lay justices' reasons and her application of legal principles were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 19
Parties
Appellant: B; Respondent: W
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Child Residence, Relocation of Child, Appeals Procedure, Shared Residence Orders, Judicial Reasoning, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Child Residence Relocation of Child Appeals Procedure Shared Residence Orders Judicial Reasoning Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against orders allowing relocation of a child and setting aside a shared residence order
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularity in delayed delivery of reasons for judgment justified permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in her approach to the lay justices' reasons and application of legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal both orders. The oral reasons given before the rehearing were sufficient, and the delay in providing written reasons did not amount to procedural unfairness or prejudice. The judge's approach to the lay justices' reasons and her application of legal principles were correct and within her discretion. No important point of principle or compelling reason was identified to justify a second appeal, and there was no real prospect of success on the merits.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal the order of 3 June 2013 refused
  • Permission to appeal the order of 28 October 2013 refused