Cook v Plummer

Cook v Plummer

The applications to amend the grounds of appeal and for permission to appeal are refused because, even if the jurisdictional argument is admitted, the Deputy Judge's exercise of discretion was proper, focusing on the children's present and future needs, and the mother has the security of the father's undertaking for maintenance. Further litigation is disproportionate given the circumstances and costs already incurred.

Parties
Appellant: Cook; Respondent: Plummer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Amend Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdiction, Children Act 1989, Periodical Payments, Stay of Proceedings
Family Law Private International Law Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction Children Act 1989 Periodical Payments Stay of Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cook

Appellant

Plummer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Amend Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to grant a common-law stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens after the ECJ decision in Owusu v Jackson
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Judge erred in exercising discretion to grant a stay in favour of New Zealand courts
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to properly apply the principles in Spiliada v Cansulex Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to amend the grounds of appeal and for permission to appeal are refused because, even if the jurisdictional argument is admitted, the Deputy Judge's exercise of discretion was proper, focusing on the children's present and future needs, and the mother has the security of the father's undertaking for maintenance. Further litigation is disproportionate given the circumstances and costs already incurred.

Court Disposition

Applications refused