CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

FCMP 67 /2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 67 OF 2010

----------------------------

________________________

________________________

________________________

RULING
(Father’s Summons for Adjournment)

________________________

Introduction

1. The Applicant is the Father and the Respondent is the Mother.

2. Today’s hearing was scheduled for the 5^th Pre-trial Hearing (“5^th PTR”) for the Father’s Summons dated 5 November 2013 for variation of the custody, care and control of the child N (“Variation Summons”).

3. On 14 May 2015, the Father’s solicitors wrote to the Court for leave to issue the present Summons to be heard at the same time at the 5^th PTR. Leave was granted on 18 May 2015 and the Summons was filed on 20 May 2015.

4. The terms of the Father’s present Summons (“Adjournment Summons”) are, inter alia, as follows :-

“1. The Applicant’s application by Inter Partes Summons dated 5 November 2013 be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore;

2. Time for filing and serving the parties’ respective updating affirmations pursuant to the Order dated 29 December 2014 be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore after such time as the Inter Partes Summons dated 5 November 2013 is restored;

3. Alternatively, leave be granted to the Applicant to file and serve his updating affirmation (as directed by paragraph 2 of the Order dated 29 December 2014 and paragraph 1 of the Order dated 27 of February 2015) out of time within 28 days of 30 June 2015.”

5. The grounds for the application are set out in the Father’s 28^th Affirmation together with 13 exhibits attached.

6. The Mother opposed the Adjournment Summons.

The Father’s Application

7. There are 2 reasons put forward by the Father in his 28^th Affirmation which can be succinctly be described as ‘Child-Focused reasons’ and ‘Health reasons’.

Child Focused reasons

8. The Father referred to certain paragraphs in the Judgment of this Court dated 5 October 2012 (that is, about 2 ½ years ago from now) after a 16-day trial on N’s custody, care and control (“Custody Judgment”). Reference was made to the Court’s view under the heading ‘The Way Forward’ in the Custody Judgment that the parties should build up trust and confidence, minimise potential conflicts over access and to achieve the goal of joint custody. The Father then referred to the Social Welfare Report (“SIR”) dated 18 June 2014 where the social welfare officer commented that both parents should undergo extensive parent counselling with the common aim of building trust and confidence with each other. The Father further referred to the report of Dr. Anita Leung, clinical psychologist, dated 30 September 2013 where the child N was found to have had anxiety problems originating from disputes between the parents (i.e. between Father and the Mother).

9. The Father produced 2 Certificates of Attendance as Exhibit “CCMJ-28-7” issued by the Parent Education Institute of the school where N is attending Primary One to show he had completed the Foundation Course in ‘Education of Children’ (held from 12/10/2014 to 14/12/2014) and the Intermediate Course in ‘Education of Family’ (held from 11/1/2015 to 22/3/2015). The Father also produced exchange of correspondence between respective lawyers, as well as emails exchanged between themselves, as to their differences in opinion over the suitability of co-parenting counselling courses. Within the exhibits, there is a Certificate of Attendance dated 27 September 2014 to show the Mother had attended the Pilot Project on ‘Child-focused’ Parenting Coordination and Co-parenting Services for Divorced Families organised by the Hong Kong Family Welfare Society.

10. The Father hoped to resolve the differences with the Mother through co-parenting counselling rather than through his Variation Summons application. According to the Father, this would be a practical way forward and a preferable way alternative to engage in litigation for the rest of N’s minority years (at paragraph 17 of his 28^th Affirmation). There is a joint undertaking embodied in a Court Order dated 3 December 2013 that both of them had agreed to participate in co-parenting counselling and coordination services.

11. At paragraphs 22 and 23 of his 28^th Affirmation, the Father deposed he verily believed bringing his Variation Summons application to a temporary halt pending the outcome of co-parenting counselling and coordination services would be beneficial to both parties and the child N. There is also the advantage of saving the Court’s time and resources, as well as costs for those updating affirmations which had not yet been filed.

Health reasons

12. At paragraphs 25 to 29 of his 28^th Affirmation, the Father sets out his grounds for his alternative prayer, namely, that he needs more time to prepare the updating affirmation in the event the adjournment sine die is refused. The extra time requested, as per the Adjournment Summons, is 28 days from 30 June 2015.

13. Reference was made to paragraph 17 of his earlier 27^th Affirmation where he deposed to have been receiving treatment for depression, anxiety and insomnia since 2012. Since May 2014, he was treated by Dr. Gabriel Hung and was prescribed antidepressant medications, anti-anxiety medications, sleeping pills and tranquilizers. A letter from Dr. Hung was produced as Exhibit “CCMJ-28-13”.

14. It is important to recite the 2 concluding paragraphs of the Father’s 28^th Affirmation as follows :-

“28. As confirmed by Dr. Hung, due to the side effects of the medication and changes, I experience extended and extreme tiredness and difficulty in concentration. This, along with my processing speed and organizational skills being affected by the medications, is a significant factor leading to my inability to keep up with large volume of documents required for these proceedings, in particular, the preparation of my substantive updating affirmation. I need more rest to improve my condition. It is mainly due to the above that I have been unable to complete my updating affirmation.

29. In late March 2015, my treating doctors at Kowloon Hospital changed my antidepressant medication from Lexapro to Pristiq. Dr. Hung notes that antidepressant medications generally take four to six weeks to show initial improvement and remission or significant improvement usually takes three months. As such, Dr. Hung anticipates that my condition should be improved by the end of June 2015 onwards so I believe that I will be able to start working on my updating affirmation around that time, if it should be necessary to do so in light of my application for an adjournment. However, I remain of the view that attempting to work matters out with the Respondent Mother through the assistance of professional service providers will be far more constructive and beneficial to N than continuing with and increasing the intensity of acrimonious litigation.”

The Mother’s Opposition

15. Today is the first call over hearing of the Father’s Adjournment Summons, the Mother had not been given any directions for the filing of Affidavit evidence.

16. Mother’s Counsel Mr. Kevin Li, on instructions, opposed the Adjournment Summons. Counsel produced his Speaking Notes and referred to the cases of WSM v. FSY (CACV No.352/2004) and CWT v. CKK (HCMP No.2501/2009) as his authorities.

17. There is also contention from Mother’s Counsel as to whether the letter attached as Exhibit “CCMJ-28-13” should be considered by the Court since it was expert evidence adduced without leave being first obtained under the Hong Kong Civil Practice.

Chronology of Events

18. At the 4^th PTR hearing on 29 December 2014, the Father was represented by Counsel Miss Rattigan and the Mother represented by Counsel Mr. Kevin Li. The hearing lasted from 10:05 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. with breaks in between for respective Counsels to discuss and consider any agreed directions. This hearing eventually was ended with agreed directions including, inter alia, the Father to file his updated affirmations within 7 weeks, the Mother to file her affirmation in reply within 7 weeks thereafter. The Father has the final right to reply within 4 weeks after the Mother’s affirmation (“PTR agreed directions”).

19. The 7-week for the Father to file his updated Affirmation expired on 16 February 2015. On 12 February 2015, the Father’s lawyers filed a Consent Summons seeking an extension of time up until 4 March 2015 for the Father to file his updated Affirmation. An Order was granted in terms of this Consent Summons on 13 February 2015.

20. On 8 April 2015 (that is, 5 weeks after the extended time had expired), the Mother’s lawyers wrote to this Court (letter copied to the Father’s lawyers) seeking directions as to conduct of the case. Reason being that the Father still had not filed his updated affirmation. On 15 April 2015, this Court on paper gave the following directions :-

“1. Parties to comply with the terms of Consent Order dated 29/12/2014;

and

2. Penal Notice be endorsed.

21. Notwithstanding it was the Father’s Summons for extension of time which was granted by consent, and also the subsequent directions of this Court that parties are to comply with the PTR agreed directions with penal notice be retrospectively endorsed on the PTR agreed directions Order of 29 December 2014, no updated Affirmation was filed by the Father. The Father instead sought leave to issue the present Adjournment Summons on 14 May 2015, which is about 1 month after the penal notice was directed.

Discussion

22. The Father’s Child-Focused reasons, in my decision, could not be accepted as sufficient ground for seeking to have his Variation Summons and the compliance of the PTR agreed directions to be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.

23. First, the Father had not explained why there is a need to keep his Variation Summons ‘alive’ and in abeyance whilst he is allegedly attempting to resolve his differences with the Mother on N’s issues through joint co-parenting counselling endeavours. The Father tried to focus and highlight on the demerits of having his variation application to run in parallel with the joint efforts of co-parenting counselling. At paragraph 19 of his 28^th Affirmation, he deposed :-

“19……I believe that, as we attempt to move forward in the spirit of cooperation, it would be incongruous for us to, at the same time, engage in hotly contested and acrimonious litigation. I verily believe that continuing the proceedings in parallel with our efforts to cooperate in co-parenting would undermine the effectiveness of the same.”

24. I have no difficulty in rejecting the Father’s submission. It is the Father himself who instigated the present pending proceedings for variation. The Mother so far has only been defending the Father’s case. How could the Father then say ‘incongruous for us (my emphasis)…to engage in hotly contested and acrimonious litigation’ ? How could he put the incongruence on the Mother over a piece of litigation started by him and the continuance or discontinuance of the proceedings is completely in his own hands ? Such submission falls short of any common sense or logic and is bound to fail.

25. If the Father is genuine and sincere over co-parenting counselling efforts as the foremost aim and objective for resolving differences with the Mother, why he does not simply withdraw his Variation Summons against the Mother as a gesture of goodwill or sincerity ? The Father’s approach of seeking adjournment sine die with liberty to restore his Variation Summons, in my view, is akin to a person having his pistol over one’s head ready to shoot if the other does not yield to him. I do not see any mutual benefit to the Father and the Mother to have the Variation Summons hanging over one’s head. I also do not believe these proceedings, if adjourned sine die, would increase the chances of success in co-parenting counselling. If there is any concern over wasted costs arising from withdrawal, this is always open for negotiation and is ultimately at the Court’s discretion. In fact, withdrawal had never been in contemplation of the Father and thus he had never suggested this in his 28^th Affirmation.

26. The Father has all along been legally represented by reputable firms with extensive matrimonial practice and experienced Counsels. I have no hesitation to say the Father must have been apprised with the contents and meaning of every single documents, orders, directions and reports with the benefit of full legal advice. It strikes my surprise that the Father now seeks to refer and also accedes to those comments of this Court contained in the Judgment dated 5 October 2012 of which he had once disagreed with and sought to obtain leave to appeal from this Court and Court of First Instance. For the sake of completeness, the Father had so far instructed 3 firms of solicitors (Messrs. Michael Li & Co., Messrs. Lam, Lee & Lai, Messrs. Haldanes) and engaged 6 Counsels to protect his interests (Miss Jennifer Tsui, Mr.Felix Li, Miss Annie Lai, Miss Francis Irving, Miss Maireed Rattigan, Mr. Jeremy S.K. Chan) throughout different stages of the proceedings.

27. The social welfare report which the Father now also referred to was dated 18 June 2014, which was arranged by this Court subsequent to his Variation Summons. Had he been convinced by the comments of the social welfare worker back in June 2014, why he did not choose to have his Variation Summons brought to an end or at least put to ‘a halt’ soon after noting the comments of the social welfare officer to facilitate any conciliatory attempt to resolve issues with the Mother ? According to the records, at the time of this social welfare report in June 2014, the proceedings had not yet been to the 1^st PTR which was held on 2 July 2014. Apparently, the Father did not pay heed to the comments in the social welfare report and decided to push along with full strength to the 1^st PTR and all the way to the 4^th PTR on 29 December 2014. It also strikes my surprise that the Father now wanted to re-visit and rely upon the social welfare officer’s comments as his grounds for adjournment.

28. I have raised with Father’s Counsel Mr. Jeremy S.K. Chan at this hearing (at 10:28:51 hours of hearing in the transcripts) that why did the Father not simply withdraw the variation application. Counsel rightly conceded that does not really make any difference as it would be without prejudice to the Father’s rights to seek variation any time later. Counsel submitted that the Father simply wanted to change the ‘litigation mode’ to ‘cooperation mode’. Unless the parties are in cooperation, there will always be variation applications coming up whether on maintenance or access before the child ceases full time education.

29. The Father’s case is to attempt to resolve differences through joint effort of co-parenting counselling. This is the aim and objective for the Father to take out the present application. However, the Father is unable to show the chances of success of his aim and objective would be enhanced by adjourning his Variation Summons. On the contrary, it is my view that withdrawal of the Variation Summons without prejudice to the Father’s right to make application later at any time, is more beneficial and likely to achieve the Father’s aim and objective.

30. Secondly, upon review of the lawyers’ correspondence exchanged lately and parties emails last year which the Father produced as his Exhibit CMMJ-28-8, it can be seen that the parties are clearly not ‘ad idem’ upon issues and no way close to consensus even on the choice of co-parenting counselling services. The letters under Exhibit CCMJ-28-9 and CCMJ-28-10 further shows the parties’ differences are sharp. The Father only agreed to participate in the Mother’s co-parenting counselling services with the Hong Kong Family Welfare Society (“HKFWS”) as late as 12 March 2015 (my emphasis) (see Exhibit CCMJ-28-11) notwithstanding that HKFWS was chosen under the terms of the Consent Order containing the parties’ joint undertaking on 3 December 2013 (my emphasis), which is about 15 months ago.

31. From reading the contents of those letters, I find more probable than not that there is a long way forward for the parties to shift from ‘litigation mode’ to ‘cooperation mode’ with these proceedings hanging around. The concept of joint co-parenting counselling emerged as early as 5 December 2013 (my emphasis) as can be seen in the terms of the Consent Order where it provides, inter alia, as follows :-

“AND UPON the parties agreeing, acknowledging and undertaking to the Court and each other that they shall engage in “Child-focused” parenting Coordination and Co-parenting Services for Divorce Families from the Hong Kong Family Welfare Society with costs to be paid by the Applicant in full and that the total costs of such parenting services shall not exceed HK$50,000.”

32. Had the Father been genuine, sincere, conscientious and cooperative towards co-parenting counselling services embodied in the terms of the Consent Order recited above, why it takes 15 months (from 5/12/2013 to 12/3/2015) for him to eventually agree to join the co-parenting counselling services provided by HKFWS ?

33. The fact that there was financial claims by the Mother during this 15-month period could not, in my view, be taken as an excuse for the Father not being able to attempt resolving differences with the Mother through co-parenting counselling. With hindsight on the stance of the Father in the financial claims trial, I believe the ‘mode’ there was antagonistic and nowhere close to cooperation. Father’s Counsel at paragraph 11 of his Brief Notes referred to the financial trial now behind the parties, the Father wishes to reactivate the parties’ constructive efforts for best interests and welfare of the child N. With respect, there is a fallacy in such submission. “Best interests” in the context of children, covers a wide perspective not only restricted to custody, care and control issues. It would also cover financial issues such as providing better food and living environment to the child may be in the child’s best interests to do so. Having heatedly fought a 6-day financial claims, I do not believe the Father’s wish to switch to ‘cooperation mode’ is realistic.

34. On the evidence before me considered in totality, I do not agree with the Father’s case that adjourning his Variation Summons and compliance with the PTR agreed directions would, adopting Father’s Counsel’s phrase, switch the parties from ‘litigation mode’ to ‘cooperation mode’ or anyway close to that.

35. In arriving at such a conclusion, it is not the intention of the Court to promote litigation and incur legal costs. It is unfortunate that from time to time there are cases where litigation is unavoidable. As I mentioned in one of my earlier Decisions in this case dated 12 December 2014 on the filing of medical reports at paragraph 3 where I said :-

“3. …….At present, N is aged 6 years old. In the past few years, 6 Judgments were delivered (4 from this Court and 2 from the High Court). This Judgment will be the 7^th Judgment where disputes between the parties seem nowhere close to the end.”

36. There are 3 matters which are worth to mention. First, all the 6 Judgments (4 plus 2), they are all stemmed from the Father’s application. Secondly, the number of Affirmations from the Father and the exhibits he produced added up to thousands of pages. There are numerous acrimonious allegations and accusations against each other in the context of those affirmations, not to include those contained in the parties’ lengthy emails exchanged attached as exhibits. Thirdly, according to the records, there are extensions of time or prolonged delay of the Father in the progress of his case since he issued the Originating Summons on 26 March 2010. The change of legal representatives by the Father had, to a certain extent, prolonged the progress of the case. To cite a few examples as follows :-

(a) Pursuant to Order of Deputy Judge Tracy Chan dated 19/10/2010 (paragraph 2), Father was to file his Affirmation in Reply within 36 days, that is, on or before 24/11/2010.

- Father only filed his 5^th Affirmation on 19/10/2011 (a delay of 11 months).

(b)Pursuant to Order of Deputy Judge S Lo dated 10/6/2013 (paragraph 5), Father was to file his updated long term arrangement within 14 days, that is, on or before 24/6/2013. A Consent Order dated 30/7/2013 to extend the time for filing to 12/8/2013.

- Father filed his 16^th Affirmation on 13/8/2013 (a delay of 7 weeks from the original time schedule).

(c) Pursuant to Order of Deputy Judge G Own dated 29/12/2014 (paragraph 1), Father was to file his updated Affirmation within 49 days, that is, on or before 16/2/2015.

A Consent Order dated 27/2/2015 to extend the time for filing to 4/3/2015

Direction granted on 14/4/2015 for penal notice to be endorsed on the Order dated 29/12/2014

- No Affirmation was filed. Instead, Father instead issued he Adjournment Summons on 20/5/2015.

37. I find the Father’s Adjournment Summons on the ground of Child Focused reasons fail.

38. Now I will deal with the Father’s alternative application, namely, extension of time for compliance with the PTR agreed directions.

39. The Father relied upon the Health reasons for seeking time extension. Evidence of his health condition comes from a letter of his treating doctor dated 13 May 2015, Dr. Gabriel B.K. Hung, which was produced as Exhibit CCMK-28-13.

Evidence of Dr. Gabriel B.K. Hung

40. Order 38 rule 36 of the Rules of the High Court provides :-

“(1) Except with the leave of the Court or where all parties agree, no expert evidence may be adduced at the trial or hearing of any cause or matter unless the party seeking to adduce the evidence –

(a) has applied to the Court to determine whether a direction should be given under rule 37 or 41 (whichever is appropriate) and has complied with any direction given on the application.

(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall apply to evidence which is permitted to be given by affidavit or shall affect the enforcement under any other provision of these rules (except of Order 45, rule 5) of a direction given under this Part of this Order.”

41. There is contention over the admissibility of the letter from Dr. Gabriel B.K. Hung as evidence. Since the Father’s evidence for the Adjournment Summons would have to be given by way of affirmation of which he produced the letter as an exhibit, I agree with Father’s Counsel that Order 38 rule 36(2) applies to the present situation. Accordingly, I am entitled to consider the contents of the letter from Dr. Hung produced as “CCMJ-28-13”.

42. The Father deposed Dr. Hung started to treat his depression since May 2014 and there were 10 treatment costs receipts from May 2014 to January 2015 produced as exhibits in his earlier 27^th Affirmation. One of the medications prescribed by Dr. Hung was “Lexapro” which can be seen in each of the 10 receipts.

43. The Father then deposed at paragraph 29 of this 28^th Affirmation that in late March 2015, his treating doctors at Kowloon Hospital changed his antidepressant medication from “Lexapro” to “Pristiq”. He went on to say Dr. Hung noted that antidepressant medications generally take 4 to 6 weeks to show initial improvement and remission or significant improvement usually takes 3 months. This is why the requested time extension of 28 days start to run from the end of June 2015.

44. The Father’s evidence, as to his health condition, is unclear and far from satisfactory.

45. First, he has not produced any documents from his treating doctors at Kowloon Hospital, such as memo or medication slips which are commonly seen in Government Hospitals, to confirm that he was being treated there and prescribed with “Pristiq”. In the absence of such evidence, which in my view should not be difficult to obtain, the change of medication is merely his bare assertion. There is not even a patient card or appointment letter of the Kowloon Hospital.

46. Secondly, if apart from Dr. Hung of ‘The Central Practice’ (shown on the top of the letter), the Father is also receiving treatment at the Kowloon Hospital, why he had not said so in his 27^th Affirmation or his Form E filed herein. When did he start treatment at the Kowloon Hospital ? Since Dr. Hung’s letter was dated 13 May 2015 without saying he had ceased treating the Father, I believe the Father might also be receiving treatment at the Kowloon Hospital where allegedly he was prescribed with “Pristiq” in March 2015. The Father offered no explanation as to why he needed treatment from Dr. Hung and Kowloon Hospital whether in parallel or in sequence. Furthermore, it is odd and unusual to find medical practitioner in private practice to provide general and overall comments on effects of prescription given by Government Hospitals without reference to dosage. Had Dr. Hung been told the dosage of prescriptions by Kowloon Hospital when he was giving his professional views of antidepressant medications apart from the name of the prescription “Pristiq” ? All these crucial information are missing.

47. Finally, I do not quite understand how could Dr Hung anticipate the Father’s condition should be improved by the end of June 2015 if the Father is receiving treatment and medication not from him but from the Kowloon Hospital ? At the last paragraph of the letter, Dr. Hung said :-

“I anticipate that his condition will be improved by the end of June 2015, which is three months following the change of his antidepressant medication.”

48. I also quoted the following passages from the letter of Dr. Hung which seems interesting to note :-

“He is on antidepressant medications, anti-anxiety medications, sleeping pills and tranquillizers for the control of his condition. Due to his depressive condition and the side effects of medications, he experiences extended and extreme tiredness (my emphasis) and difficulty in concentration (my emphasis). His processing speed and organizational skills are also affected. This is a significant factor leading to his inability to keep up with the large volume of documents required for his current matrimonial proceedings, in particular the preparation of his affidavit.

Although his ability to process complex legal documents is currently impaired, I do not foresee any difficulty in his ability to care for himself or for his daughter during this period.”

49. Given the fact that looking after children of tender years are always said, which I believe is true from day to day experience, to be an energetic exercise, it puzzled me how the Father with ‘extended and extreme tiredness’ and ‘difficulty in concentration’ would have no difficulty in caring for his daughter, aged 6 ½ years during such period of extreme tiredness as Dr. Hung had so opined.

50. As said, the Father has been fully advised and assisted by reputable firms of lawyers with extensive matrimonial practice experience. I believe his rights and interests have been and will continue to be best looked after in the further conduct and preparation of these proceedings.

51. In the absence of further elaboration from Dr. Hung or other evidence which are of relevance, I attach very little weight to the medical evidence so far adduced by the Father to consider his Health reasons for seeking extra time to comply with those long due and outstanding PTR agreed directions.

52. Concluding upon all the evidence, I also find the Father’s Adjournment Summons on the ground of Health reasons fails.

Other Considerations

53. I have considered Father’s Counsel’s submission as to the need to deal with the present matter expeditiously. It was submitted the present proceedings relate to variation application which happens, unless the respective parents co-operate and resolve their differences, from time to time when the Court’s assistance is needed. This is not akin to those custody trials since such issue had long been decided in the present case in October 2012. Given the passage of time, it is now moving along to more or less equal access time with both parents, say the 56:44 split, which the Father persistently highlighted throughout in his case.

54. With respect, I do not agree with Father’s Counsel. The pending proceedings were instigated by the Father for variation of custody, care and control of the child. In effect and in essence, this is a change of the status quo. The ‘de facto’ more or less equal sharing access time of, say, 56:44 as the Father had persistently claimed and highlighted in his case does not, in my view, change the legal position in terms of the primary care and control of the child. There should be no mix-up of access with care and control. The plain fact that remains is that this is children’s matter which calls for expedition.

55. I agree with Mother’s Counsel’s submission that children’s matter should always be dealt with expeditiously and be given priority. Those cardinal principles in relation to children’s matter enunciated in cases of WSM v. FSY (CACV 352/2004) and CWT v. CKK (HCMP No.2501/2009) do apply to the present case. Father’s Counsel had not been able to come up with any case law where there is any differentiation, in terms of prioritisation of children’s matters, between first round custody trials and variation of custody trials.

56. I also agree with Mother’s Counsel that those underlying objectives of the Civil Justice Reform under Order 1A and 1B of the Rules of the High Court should be fully observed in that a case should be dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable.

57. I was invited by Mother’s Counsel to consider the sanction of ‘unless order’. In my decision, this is not applicable on children’s cases or even in family cases.

58. I was also invited by Mother’s Counsel to consider costs for the 5^th PTR be granted against the Father since the 5^th PTR hearing has now been overtaken by the Father’s Adjournment Summons.

59. In my decision, the appropriate costs order for the 5^th PTR would either be reserved or in the cause. I would, at this stage, reserve such costs and separately deal with the costs of the Father’s Adjournment Summons.

60. For the costs of the Adjournment Summons, the Father lost paragraphs 1 and 2 of his Summons. For paragraph 3, he succeeded only in obtaining an extension but not to the requested time frame. In exercise of my discretion, I believe it is fair and reasonable for the costs of the Adjournment Summons be in the cause of the Variation Summons.

Conclusion

61. For the above reasons, I dismiss paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Father’s Adjournment Summons with costs.

62. In respect of paragraph 3 of the Father’s Adjournment Summons, I make the following orders and directions :-

(a) Leave be granted for the Applicant to file and serve Updated Affirmation (pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Order dated 29 December 2014 and paragraph 1 of the Order dated 27 February 2015) out of time within 14 days from the date of this Ruling, that is, on or before 24 June 2015;

(b)Leave be granted for the Respondent to file and serve her Affirmation in reply (pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order dated 29 December 2014) out of time within 14 days thereafter, that is, on or before 8 July 2015;

(c) Leave be granted to the Applicant to file and serve his Affirmation in Reply (if any) (pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Order dated 29 December 2014) out of time within 7 days thereafter, that is, on or before 15 July 2015;

(d)No further affirmation be filed without leave by either party save as aforesaid;

(e) An updated Social Welfare Report on variation of custody, care and control of the child N be called for in English, to be made available within 6 weeks from the filing of the last affirmation aforesaid;

(f) Any further interlocutory application be filed within 14 days of receipt of the updated Social Welfare Report;

(g) The 6^th PTR be fixed after 26 August 2015 but no later than 11 September 2015 in consultation with Counsel’s diaries;

(h)The costs of the Father’s (Applicant’s) Adjournment Summons dated 14 May 2015 be in the cause of the Variation Summons;

(i) The Mother’s (Respondent’s) own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations;

(j) There be Certificate for Counsel; and

(k)The costs of the 5^th PTR hearing be reserved.