Godwin & Waddington

In the matter of *Godwin & Waddington*, heard before W J Neville J, Mr Godwin (the Applicant Father) sought to vary final consent orders made in 2016 concerning their 12-year-old child, X. The Applicant's grounds for variation were that X had matured and was expressing a desire for a simplified schedule and equal time in blocks. Ms Waddington (the Respondent Mother) sought the dismissal of the Application.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant Father had established a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant revisiting the final consent orders. Specifically, the court had to consider if the child's increased age and maturity, and his expressed views, constituted a sufficient basis for varying the existing orders, particularly in light of the original orders being made by consent with legal representation for both parties.

Justice Neville dismissed the Applicant Father's application, finding that the child's growth and maturity, being a predictable and known factor at the time the consent orders were made, did not, without more, constitute a material change in circumstances. The court also noted significant omissions in the Applicant's evidence, including the failure to produce expert reports from 2015 and 2019 that dealt with the child's capacities. This lack of independent evidence, coupled with the child's age, meant that the child's views could not be given significant weight. The court applied the long-standing principle that a change in circumstances must be a "relevant" change, and that the mere passage of time and natural maturation of a child, known to all parties at the time of consent orders, is not typically sufficient to justify re-litigation.

The court ordered that the Initiating Application filed by the Applicant on 30 November 2020 be dismissed. Furthermore, the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs, to be agreed or taxed.