MW v The Family Court and MVH
[2012] NZSC 117
•18 December 2012
| NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 437A OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS |
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 86/2012 [2012] NZSC 117 |
| BETWEEN MW |
| AND THE FAMILY COURT |
| AND MVH |
| Court: Elias CJ, William Young and Chambers JJ |
| Counsel: Applicant in person |
| Judgment: 18 December 2012 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
This is an application for leave to appeal, on a leap-frog basis, from a judgment of Venning J[1] dismissing an application for review arising out of an attempt by the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court under the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 to obtain an interim restraining order against the second respondent in relation to his (that is the applicant’s) children.[2] They are living with their mother and the second respondent who is her partner and the applicant considers that they are at risk.
[1] MW v Family Court [2012] NZHC 2977.
[2] MW v MVH FC North Shore FAM-2012-044-1091, 26 October 2012.
The applicant has not demonstrated any basis, let alone “exceptional circumstances”,[3] for a leap-frog appeal. If he wants to challenge Venning J’s decision, he must do so in the Court of Appeal.
[3] Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14.
The applicant, having failed on his application for leave, must pay costs to the second respondent.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for First Respondent
Kennelly Law, Auckland, for Second Respondent
0
0
0