AMD v DBS [2013] NZHC 3451

AMD v DBS [2013] NZHC 3451

The stay was refused because the revised regime did not constitute a fundamental change from existing arrangements, the appeal could be heard within a short timeframe (about eight weeks) so delay and prejudice were limited, and the parents were assessed as capable of cooperating to resolve interim issues; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured refusing a stay in the paramount interests of the children.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 3451
Parties
Applicant: AMD; Respondent: DBS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Relocation and Parenting Order Appeal / Stay Application and Interlocutory Directions Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay refused; interlocutory timetable and directions made; appeal fixture set
Legal Topics
Relocation, Parenting Orders, Stay Pending Appeal, Interim Timetabling and Directions
Family Law Child Custody and Care Appeal and Interlocutory Relief Relocation Parenting Orders Stay Pending Appeal Interim Timetabling and Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMD

Applicant

DBS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Relocation and Parenting Order Appeal / Stay Application and Interlocutory Directions Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of the revised care arrangements should be granted pending determination of the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the revised regime constitutes a fundamental change to care arrangements
  3. 3 Whether the short delay until the appeal creates unacceptable prejudice to the children or parties

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the revised regime did not constitute a fundamental change from existing arrangements, the appeal could be heard within a short timeframe (about eight weeks) so delay and prejudice were limited, and the parents were assessed as capable of cooperating to resolve interim issues; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured refusing a stay in the paramount interests of the children.

Court Disposition

Stay refused; interlocutory timetable and directions made; appeal fixture set

Orders

  • Stay of the revised care arrangements refused
  • Appeal to be heard on 5 March 2014 with a one day estimate