2 Sept 2025
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the NRCPO Decision of 23 April 2020; the NRCPO's adverse factual findings were supported by evidence and within its discretion, and therefore there was no basis for judicial review.
5 Feb 2024
Applicant's delay of about one month was not excused and he failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success because he did not challenge the Board's findings (including availability of state protection and internal relocation) and was absent from the hearing; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
22 Jul 2022
The evidence was insufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction: the trial judge erred in selectively accepting and rejecting competing witness evidence, made an unsupported factual finding that the appellant had been informed that D1 had been struck by D2 (which lacked evidential foundation), and failed to address material possibilities (including D1 intoxication and self-infliction); accordingly the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was quashed.
28 May 2020
Costs in private children proceedings are exceptional; the father’s litigation conduct was sufficiently unreasonable to warrant an adverse costs order but not to the rare degree required for indemnity costs. Therefore the father was ordered to contribute 50% of the mother’s costs of and arising out of the amended summons dated 10 September 2018 (including related applications and reserved costs), with a certificate for counsel and taxation on a party-and-party basis if not agreed.
19 Mar 2020
On the balance of probabilities the father's allegations of physical and mental abuse by the mother, T and M were not proven; as the child's welfare requires prompt, uninterrupted specialised therapy and restoration of the maternal relationship, sole custody and care and control were granted to the mother, immediate change of residence ordered, father's access temporarily suspended pending therapy and review; penal notice endorsed and costs reserved.
14 Jun 2019
Although relations between the parents are highly conflicted, they are not so damaged as to make joint custody infeasible; the child's best interests require continued meaningful involvement of both parents, a settled overnight arrangement and shared decision-making, so an order for joint custody with shared care was made with detailed term-time and holiday arrangements, appointment of a parental coordinator and compulsory parenting course attendance for high conflict cases.
29 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success; the judge concluded the mother's litigation conduct (malicious undercurrent, publication of the father's undertaking, failure to retract when warned) justified departing from the general no-costs rule and ordering party and party costs to the 1st Applicant to be taxed if not agreed.
27 Aug 2018
Leave to appeal refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge correctly applied the paramount best interests principle, her factual findings that the mother undermined the father’s relationship were amply supported, she gave cogent reasons for departing from expert recommendations, and no legal error was demonstrated; costs were awarded to the father and procedural protections ordered.
2 Jul 2014
The order nisi that there should be no order as to costs was made absolute because the appellants were justified in raising the IDT point which required determination by the Court and, had the matter proceeded to the necessary fact finding, the applicants might have achieved a different outcome; accordingly it was inappropriate simply to apply the 'costs follow the event' rule where the IDT point necessitated further inquiry.
22 Feb 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the appellate court found no error in the magistrate's assessment of credibility or in the weighing of photographic and medical evidence; the magistrate's factual conclusions were reasonable and there was no basis to characterize the conviction as unsafe.