C v. S

C v. S

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the court had already considered and justifiably rejected the Father's proposed directions as unnecessary and onerous, the Father's purported 'consent' was conditional and therefore not consent, his conduct contributed to delay contrary to the child's urgent welfare, and the costs order was a proper exercise of the court's discretion given his conduct.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2068
Parties
Plaintiff (father): C; Defendant (mother): S; Ward (represented by Official Solicitor): N
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2019
Case Number
HCMP929/2017
Procedural Posture
Wardship/guardianship (inherent Jurisdiction) / Decision on Leave to Appeal (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; Father's summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Wardship, Inherent Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Consent to Summons, Medical Treatment Authorization, Costs Follow the Event
Source Language
EN
Family Law Guardianship Child Welfare Civil Procedure Costs Wardship Inherent Jurisdiction Leave to Appeal +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Plaintiff (father)

S

Defendant (mother)

N

Ward (represented by Official Solicitor)

Procedural Posture

Wardship/guardianship (inherent Jurisdiction) / Decision on Leave to Appeal (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in refusing to impose the Father's proposed directions regarding medical treatment and parental involvement
  2. 2 Whether the Father was improperly criticised for non‑attendance at a hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Father consented to the Official Solicitor's summons

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the court had already considered and justifiably rejected the Father's proposed directions as unnecessary and onerous, the Father's purported 'consent' was conditional and therefore not consent, his conduct contributed to delay contrary to the child's urgent welfare, and the costs order was a proper exercise of the court's discretion given his conduct.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; Father's summons dismissed

Orders

  • Father's leave application dismissed
  • Father to pay the costs of the Official Solicitor and the Mother of and incidental to this leave application