R (Children)

R (Children)

Although the judge misdirected himself regarding the law on shared residence orders and failed to give sufficient weight to the children's wishes, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion not to order a retrial, as the practical outcome would likely be the same and further litigation would risk the children's current security.

Parties
Appellant's Advocate: Miss M Edwards; Respondent's Advocate: Mr J Walker-Kane; Respondent: Mother; Appellant: Father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Shared Residence Orders, Children's Welfare, Judicial Discretion, Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss M Edwards

Appellant's Advocate

Mr J Walker-Kane

Respondent's Advocate

Mother

Respondent

Father

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law and principle in rejecting the option of a shared residence order for the children.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient weight was given to the children's wishes in the decision-making process.
  3. 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered due to misdirection.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the judge misdirected himself regarding the law on shared residence orders and failed to give sufficient weight to the children's wishes, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion not to order a retrial, as the practical outcome would likely be the same and further litigation would risk the children's current security.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time granted
  • Permission to appeal granted