25 Apr 1989
RE L
- Citation
- RE L
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV31/1989
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the parties, properly exercised his discretion under section 5(5D) and was entitled to find the applicant was not genuine or sincere in seeking to resume parental rights; that finding meant the applicant failed the primary threshold for relief and there was no error of law or principle warranting appellate intervention.