JDYS v. EYCK ALSO KNOWN AS KEYC

JDYS v. EYCK ALSO KNOWN AS KEYC

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge permissibly exercised her discretion in the children's best interests, reasonably rejected the experts' week‑on/week‑off recommendation as too disruptive for the youngest child and gave adequate reasons; therefore the decision was not plainly wrong and did not justify appellate interference.

Citation
JDYS v. EYCK ALSO KNOWN AS KEYC
Parties
Petitioner (mother): JDYS; Respondent (father): EYCK also known as KEYC
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 April 2017
Case Number
HCMP3584/2016
Procedural Posture
Family Children Custody (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Family Court Decision; Paper Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; no order on admission of fresh evidence; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Shared Care and Control, Access/visitation, Best Interests of the Child, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Expert Evidence
Source Language
EN
Family Law Child Custody Appeals Shared Care and Control Access/visitation Best Interests of the Child Admission of Fresh Evidence Expert Evidence

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

JDYS

Petitioner (mother)

EYCK also known as KEYC

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Family Children Custody (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Family Court Decision; Paper Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judge misapplied her discretion in rejecting experts' recommendation for week‑on/week‑off shared care
  2. 2 Whether the Judge made an unsupported finding of fact about the youngest child's capacity to cope
  3. 3 Whether the Judge should have met the child to assess maturity

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge permissibly exercised her discretion in the children's best interests, reasonably rejected the experts' week‑on/week‑off recommendation as too disruptive for the youngest child and gave adequate reasons; therefore the decision was not plainly wrong and did not justify appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; no order on admission of fresh evidence; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • No order on the application to adduce new evidence