MW v THE FAMILY COURT SC 86/2012

MW v THE FAMILY COURT SC 86/2012

The applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required by section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 for a leap-frog appeal; accordingly leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused and the applicant must pursue any challenge in the Court of Appeal.

Citation
SC 86/2012
Parties
Applicant: MW; First Respondent: THE FAMILY COURT; Second Respondent: MVH
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (leap Frog) From High Court Review Decision / Leave Application to Supreme Court Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs to second respondent
Legal Topics
Interim Restraining Order, Jurisdiction Under Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, Leave to Appeal, Leap Frog Appeal, Costs
Family Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Appeals Interim Restraining Order Jurisdiction Under Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 Leave to Appeal Leap Frog Appeal Costs

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MW

Applicant

THE FAMILY COURT

First Respondent

MVH

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court (leap Frog) From High Court Review Decision / Leave Application to Supreme Court Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to permit a leap-frog appeal to the Supreme Court under s 14 Supreme Court Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the applicant properly invoked the Family Court jurisdiction under the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 to obtain an interim restraining order in relation to his children

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required by section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 for a leap-frog appeal; accordingly leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused and the applicant must pursue any challenge in the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs to second respondent

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar