23 May 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned January Order was an interlocutory case management decision subject to a high threshold for appeal, the applicant failed to specify which part of the order was appealed and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling interest of justice to justify leave.
13 Sept 2023
The court applied the paramountcy of the child’s best interests, found Shenzhen to be the child’s habitual residence and that the balance of evidence favored return to Mother; the child’s wishes were given limited weight due to his age and unreliable evidence and conduct by Father undermined his case. Consequently the court ordered return within 7 days, immediate surrender of travel documents and interim custody to Mother subject to her undertakings.
23 Dec 2021
The court refused to vary the existing costs order nisi and refused the Father's application for indemnity costs because the parties each genuinely believed they had an arguable case and the Mother's conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for indemnity costs; accordingly the Mother's summons to vary was dismissed, the Father's summons seeking indemnity was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs for the summonses filed 5 November 2021.
2 Sept 2013
The court found the mother failed to establish acquiescence because the father's conduct lacked a clear and unequivocal acceptance of wrongful retention and his delay was explicable by attempts at reconciliation and practical constraints; the mother failed to establish a grave risk because the incidents alleged did not demonstrate direct or persistent risk to the child and proposed protective measures (accommodation arrangements, generous access, and the father's undertaking not to prosecute) sufficiently mitigated concerns; accordingly the child must be returned to the Netherlands with speci…
22 Mar 2002
The court held the children remained habitually resident in New Zealand at the time of wrongful retention; the mother retained rights of custody under New Zealand law; the uncle and aunt's retention after the mother's demand (18 September 2001) and after 28 September 2001 was wrongful under Article 3; Article 13(b) grave risk was not established on the evidence because adequate monitoring and protective services in New Zealand, together with proposed procedural safeguards, mitigated the risk; accordingly the court ordered return to New Zealand subject to the condition that appropriate protect…