W (A Child), Re

A judge making a child-contact order need not explain why a provisional view changed during an adjournment, provided the final conclusion is reasoned. Where an order appears to make additional holiday contact dependent on the resident parent's agreement, the Court of Appeal may adjourn the permission application for a hearing on notice. A fresh allegation that the child's residence was materially misrepresented, if proved, may justify permission to amend the grounds and adduce fresh evidence because it could invalidate the proceedings below.

The father applied for permission to appeal a Leicester County Court order concerning contact with his child. On 27 September 2001, the judge ordered contact for one weekend in every four, two hours on Christmas Day, and no additional staying contact during school holidays except by agreement. The father sought contact every other weekend, while the mother proposed contact once every two months.

After judgment, the father obtained information that the child had been removed from the primary school and alleged that the mother and child had moved to Birmingham before the hearing. The Court of Appeal considered the adequacy of the judge's reasoning, the effect of the agreement requirement, and whether the new point and evidence should be admitted.

The application was adjourned for permission to appeal to be heard on notice, with an appeal to follow if permission was granted. Time was extended, and the father was given leave to amend his notice and adduce fresh evidence.

1. The judge's order for contact on one weekend in every four was not open to criticism. A judge was not required to explain why a provisional view expressed before an adjournment differed from the final conclusion, although an explanation might have helped the disappointed party. The final conclusion was adequately reasoned.
2. The provision that there should be no additional staying contact during school holidays except by agreement appeared effectively to give the mother a veto over additional contact. Since that provision had not been appealed, it was at least the starting point for any further application. The concern nevertheless had sufficient force to justify an adjourned hearing on notice.
3. The allegation that the mother and child had moved before the hearing, contrary to the case advanced below, was a fresh point not included in the notice. If established, it was likely that the proceedings in the county court would be invalid. That justified extending time, permitting amendment of the grounds, and allowing fresh evidence.
4. The further hearing was to have a two-hour time estimate before a two-judge court. The public-funded applicant's costs were to be assessed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was adjourned for hearing on notice, with an appeal to follow if permission was granted. Leave was granted to amend the notice and adduce fresh evidence.
• Leicester County Court: His Honour Judge Mayer QC made the contact order on 27 September 2001.