28 Mar 2022
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed grounds primarily challenged factual assessments made by two lower courts which applied settled legal principles; no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was established, and the justice of the case (including delay and the children's interests) did not justify a further appeal.
21 Mar 2022
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed grounds are case‑specific factual disputes that do not raise any seriously arguable question of law or issue of sufficient importance to justify the delay of a further appeal; the courts below correctly applied the law on habitual residence and the s106 exceptions, and correctly exercised discretion not to order a s133 psychological report or admit further evidence.
29 Jun 2011
The High Court found the Family Court correctly concluded there was an agreement that the children would be away for no more than three weeks and therefore their continued presence in New Zealand constituted wrongful retention in breach of the father's custody rights under the Hague Convention and the Care of Children Act; the respondent failed to prove any s106 defence (no acquiescence; no reliable evidence that the child objected); procedural complaints were not pursued and did not vitiate the process; accordingly the mandatory return order under s105(2) was confirmed and the appeal dismiss…