Hinds v Hinds (AR309/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 92 (14 October 2016)

Hinds v Hinds (AR309/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 92 (14 October 2016)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the court a quo was wrong in refusing leave to relocate Ethan to Zimbabwe. The expert evidence from the psychologist, Family Advocate, and Family Counsellor was unanimous that relocation at that time would not be in Ethan's best interests and would likely cause psychological harm. The appellant's decision to relocate was made precipitously, without adequate consultation or expert assessment of Ethan's needs. The factual circumstances did not establish that the appellant would be destitute if leave was refused, nor that her relationship or employment prospects in Zimbabwe were secure. The court emphasized that the...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZPHC 92
Parties
Appellant: Lauren Hazel Hinds (nee Shinns); Respondent: Anthony Ian Hinds
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Case Number
AR309/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Urgent Application for Leave to Relocate Minor Child
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to costs; costs order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.
Judges
Van Zÿl, Koen, Olsen
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Child, Best Interests of Child, Custody and Access, Children's Act, Costs Orders
Family and Children Civil Procedure Relocation of Minor Child Best Interests of Child Custody and Access Children's Act Costs Orders

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

Parties

Lauren Hazel Hinds (nee Shinns)

Appellant

Anthony Ian Hinds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Urgent Application for Leave to Relocate Minor Child

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the minor child to be relocated from South Africa to Zimbabwe with the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's application for leave to relocate should be granted given the expert evidence and factual circumstances.
  3. 3 What costs order is appropriate in light of the parties' bona fide conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the court a quo was wrong in refusing leave to relocate Ethan to Zimbabwe. The expert evidence from the psychologist, Family Advocate, and Family Counsellor was unanimous that relocation at that time would not be in Ethan's best interests and would likely cause psychological harm. The appellant's decision to relocate was made precipitously, without adequate consultation or expert assessment of Ethan's needs. The factual circumstances did not establish that the appellant would be destitute if leave was refused, nor that her relationship or employment prospects in Zimbabwe were secure. The court emphasized that the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to costs; costs order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • Save to the extent set out in paragraph (b), the appeal is dismissed and each party is ordered to pay her or his own costs.
  • The costs order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order that each party is ordered to pay her or his own costs.