A (A Child), Re

Permission to appeal should be refused where the challenged decision falls plainly within the lower court’s discretionary ambit and the grounds disclose no misdirection, material error or realistic prospect of success. A family judge may rely on the outcome of a local authority investigation and give it appropriate weight. Any public law challenge to the authority’s decision must be pursued separately. An immaterial factual slip does not justify appellate intervention. Restrictions on further residence or contact applications may be imposed exceptionally, where necessary to protect the child from continuing parental conflict.

The father sought permission to appeal from a decision of Worthing County Court concerning residence and contact with his daughter. The lower court had made a generous contact order but required the father to obtain prior leave before making further applications concerning residence or contact for 18 months. The father challenged the local authority’s investigation, an alleged factual error in the judgment, and the restriction on further applications. Permission was refused on paper, and the father renewed the application before the Court of Appeal.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

1. Local authority investigation. The lower court was entitled to take the outcome of the local authority’s investigation into account and to attach such weight as appeared appropriate in light of the evidence. It was neither the judge’s function nor within the judge’s powers, in those proceedings, to require the authority to review the merits of its decision. Any challenge to the lawfulness of that decision in public law terms had to be pursued elsewhere. If a later investigation produced a different outcome, the father could make a renewed application on the merits in those circumstances.
2. Immaterial factual error. Even if the lower court had misstated the occasion on which an incident occurred, the error had no bearing on its conclusions or order and afforded no basis for appellate intervention.
3. Restriction on further applications. The 18-month requirement for prior leave was an exceptional exercise of the lower court’s powers. It was supported by the need to give the parties space, protect the child from direct or indirect exposure to continuing tension and acrimony, and the judge’s finding that the father’s conduct was exceptional.
4. Objectively viewed, the decision was plainly within the lower court’s discretion. There was no evidence of misdirection or error and no realistic prospect of a successful appeal. The formal order was: application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the father’s renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Worthing County Court: His Honour Judge Barratt QC made the residence and contact orders in a written judgment dated 13 December 2000, including an 18-month restriction requiring prior leave for further applications.
• Permission stage: Permission to appeal was initially refused on paper.