TAC v. VDC nee VDM

TAC v. VDC nee VDM

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on any of the proposed grounds; the trial judge properly exercised her discretion, had the child's best interests firmly in mind, lawfully assessed competing expert evidence and parental circumstances, and the costs and procedural orders made were within her discretion.

Citation
TAC v. VDC nee VDM
Parties
Petitioner: TAC; Respondent: VDC nee VDM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 December 2012
Case Number
HCMP2198/2012
Procedural Posture
Family Child Relocation/custody / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; order that no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing; costs awarded to the respondent (mother).
Legal Topics
Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Expert Evidence Assessment, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Family Law Child Custody Appeal Costs Civil Procedure Relocation Best Interests of the Child Expert Evidence Assessment +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAC

Petitioner

VDC nee VDM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Child Relocation/custody / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.63A District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law or principle in applying the best interests of the child
  3. 3 Whether the judge misassessed expert evidence preferring therapist over jointly appointed experts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on any of the proposed grounds; the trial judge properly exercised her discretion, had the child's best interests firmly in mind, lawfully assessed competing expert evidence and parental circumstances, and the costs and procedural orders made were within her discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; order that no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing; costs awarded to the respondent (mother).

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • No party may request reconsideration of this determination at an oral hearing pursuant to RHC O.59 r.2A(8)