Gilligan and Addison & Ors

The appellant, who was not biologically related to the children in question, brought an appeal against the orders made by the trial judge which excluded him from the children's lives. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's decision was correct and whether the appellant posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. Additionally, the court had to decide whether costs should be awarded to the fourth respondents and the Independent Children's Lawyer against the appellant.

The court found that the trial judge had canvassed the evidence thoroughly and provided cogent reasons for concluding that the appellant posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. The risk of sexual abuse posed by the appellant was a significant factor in the evidence. The court held that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal. The court also found that the fourth respondents and the Independent Children's Lawyer did not comply with procedural orders, and as such, their applications for costs against the appellant were dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the trial judge's decision was supported by the evidence. The court found that the risk of sexual abuse posed by the appellant was an overwhelming feature of the evidence. The court dismissed the applications for costs made by the fourth respondents and the Independent Children's Lawyer due to their non-compliance with procedural orders.

The appeal was dismissed, and the oral applications for costs made by the fourth respondents and the Independent Children's Lawyer were dismissed.