|
CACV 103/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2008
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 2031 OF 2006)
----------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
L |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
K |
1st Respondent |
| |
C |
2nd Respondent |
----------------------
Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 9 October 2008
Date of Judgment: 9 October 2008
----------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
---------------------------------------
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application by way of appeal from a ruling of Hartmann J given on 10 March this year.
2. It is by no means a happy case, because it does involve the custody and the wellbeing of two children.
3. The application came before the judge in circumstances which are described in his ruling. These proceedings commenced in October 2006 when the mother of the two children applied for custody and directions for grant of access in respect of twins who are now aged about 12. For the last four years they have been living with the mother’s brother and his wife, and they are clearly doing well at school and the circumstances are right.
4. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this judgment to go into the full facts which are set out in the judgment below, but I would say this: that we have heard extensively from the mother this morning and also from her brother and his wife, who are the two respondents.
5. The order that the judge made was that the applicant’s best way forward was to liaise with the International Social Services so that an initial system by way of letters and emails can be set out. The judge was satisfied that the guardians would do their best to ensure that contact by those means was successful. Later in the year, telephone contact could be considered. The judge ordered that the matter should be reviewed at a hearing on 12 December of this year, and that seems to me to be an entirely sensible course.
6. No doubt now, since Hartmann J has been elevated to the Court of Appeal, the case will be assigned to another judge. But I have to say that in view of the judge’s approach, and it was a matter of his discretion, I see no grounds for interfering with that, particularly in the case of custody of infants, where this court pays great attention to what was said by the judge below and the course which the judge has taken, often not saying any more than is necessary. But of course there are many matters which are taken into consideration, and unless this court sees that the judge has erred in principle, it is wrong for this court to interfere with such delicate arrangements as there are for children. I am particularly concerned that in this case there seems to be a multiplicity of applications. I feel that I can only express my sorrow that that is happening, and that those concerned with looking after the children are put to considerable inconvenience, and no doubt having to take time off work to come to court to answer these matters.
7. So I regret that the only course that I can see that is open to this court is to dismiss this appeal and leave it to the directions of the court below as has been ordered, that the matter should go back before the court below in December of this year.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
8. I agree.
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant/Appellant, in person
The 1st Respondent, in person
The 2nd Respondent, in person
|