Michael v Ad Hoc Central Authority and Another (24215/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 173 (26 September 2012)

Michael v Ad Hoc Central Authority and Another (24215/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 173 (26 September 2012)

The court found that the applicant no longer pursued the issue of habitual residence, and that the best interests of the child were thoroughly considered in the original judgment. The court also determined that, although not explicitly stated, it had exercised its discretion under the Hague Convention regarding the return of the child. The judge concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of another court reaching a different conclusion, and therefore refused leave to appeal with costs.

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 173
Parties
Applicant: Lisa Michael; Respondent: Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Ive Godecke
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2012
Case Number
24215/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Judges
Desai
Legal Topics
Best Interests of Child, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention, Constitutional Rights of Children
Family and Children Constitutional Law Best Interests of Child Habitual Residence Hague Convention Constitutional Rights of Children

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Michael

Applicant

Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Ive Godecke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Belgium was the minor child's place of habitual residence.
  2. 2 Whether the court considered the best interests of the child as required by the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the court exercised its discretion under the Hague Convention regarding the return of the child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant no longer pursued the issue of habitual residence, and that the best interests of the child were thoroughly considered in the original judgment. The court also determined that, although not explicitly stated, it had exercised its discretion under the Hague Convention regarding the return of the child. The judge concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of another court reaching a different conclusion, and therefore refused leave to appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.