K v K (Approved) [2022] IECA 246_2 (28 October 2022)

K v K (Approved) [2022] IECA 246_2 (28 October 2022)

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge failed to properly engage with the expert evidence, did not adequately explain her rejection of the recommendations supporting relocation, and made comments and interventions that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment. The process by which the judge met with the children lacked clarity and procedural safeguards. The High Court's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Citation
[2022] IECA 246_2
Parties
Applicant/respondent: D. K.; Respondent/appellant: P. I. K.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal Civil (family Law, Child Relocation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relocation Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order refusing relocation set aside; matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Guardianship, Custody, Best Interests of the Child, Judicial Separation, Parental Rights, International Child Abduction
Family Law Child Law Child Relocation Guardianship Custody Best Interests of the Child Judicial Separation Parental Rights +1 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. K.

Applicant/respondent

P. I. K.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Civil (family Law, Child Relocation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relocation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing the mother's application to relocate the children to another EU Member State (Y)
  2. 2 Whether the High Court judge demonstrated prejudgment or bias
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the children were properly assessed under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 and relevant constitutional and international standards

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge failed to properly engage with the expert evidence, did not adequately explain her rejection of the recommendations supporting relocation, and made comments and interventions that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment. The process by which the judge met with the children lacked clarity and procedural safeguards. The High Court's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order refusing relocation set aside; matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court order refusing relocation.
  • Remit the relocation application for rehearing before a different High Court judge.