LWY v. HM

LWY v. HM

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success; the grounds advanced lacked merit or had been considered below; the father failed to demonstrate unfairness from self-representation or to justify raising a new ground of procedural inconsistency for the first time on appeal; appellate intervention was not warranted as it would require re-weighing evidence.

Citation
LWY v. HM
Parties
Petitioner: Mother; Respondent: Father
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 August 2016
Case Number
HCMP1497/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal in Family Custody Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Access/visitation, Best Interests of the Child, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Appeal Child Law Child Custody Access/visitation Best Interests of the Child Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Petitioner

Father

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal in Family Custody Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the judge correctly applied the best interests principle in awarding sole custody
  3. 3 Whether the father's lack of legal representation rendered proceedings unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success; the grounds advanced lacked merit or had been considered below; the father failed to demonstrate unfairness from self-representation or to justify raising a new ground of procedural inconsistency for the first time on appeal; appellate intervention was not warranted as it would require re-weighing evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • No party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes pursuant to Order 59 Rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court.