F v M

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties, referred to as the Appellant and Respondent, are respectively the father and mother of a child aged 12. The litigation between them concerning the child has been ongoing since 2012, involving multiple applications and orders from first instance and appellate courts in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

Key events in the litigation history include:

• September 2013: An English County Court issued a residence order in favour of the mother and a contact order regarding the child.
• June 2016: A Northern Ireland first instance court made several orders including residence and contact orders in favour of the mother, a prohibited steps order preventing the mother from changing the child’s surname, and an order requiring leave of court for further applications relating to the child for three years.
• May 2018: The father’s appeal against an interim contact order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
• December 2019: The High Court renewed the Article 179(4) order and amended the contact order.
• September 2020: The Court of Appeal dismissed the father’s appeals.
• November 2020: A first instance court refused the father’s application for leave to commence residence order proceedings.
• December 2020: The father’s appeal against that refusal was dismissed.
• March 2021: The High Court granted leave to both parties to commence Children Order proceedings.
• July 2021: The High Court made an interim contact order; the father’s appeal was dismissed.
• November 2021: The father’s appeal against High Court directions was dismissed.
• January 2022: The High Court dismissed the father’s application for leave to commence contact order proceedings.
• March 2022: The High Court renewed the Article 179(4) order for a further three years.
• August 2022: The High Court dismissed the father’s application for leave to issue a residence order application; this order is the subject of the current appeal.

The father filed two appeal documents before the Court of Appeal: a detailed 45-page notice of appeal dated 19 August 2022, and a pro-forma “Notice of Appeal to the High Court” dated 6 June 2022, the latter alleging errors of fact by the trial judge and containing serious allegations against the Respondent.

The High Court judge, in his March 2022 judgment, refused the father's request for a fact-finding hearing on historic allegations and emphasized the parents' deep mistrust and the court's focus on the child's welfare. The August 2022 judgment dismissed the father's application for leave to issue a residence order, finding no material change in circumstances or new evidence sufficient to justify the application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the father’s application for leave to issue a residence order had an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success based on any material change in circumstances since the last order.
2. Whether the father’s appeal constituted an impermissible collateral attack on previous contact orders not under appeal.
3. The extent to which the welfare principle governs the court’s consideration of applications and appeals relating to the child’s residence and contact.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded on the basis of extensive written materials submitted by the Appellant and the procedural history of the case. It noted the father’s attempts to relitigate factual findings and judicial decisions from earlier proceedings, which the court found impermissible. The court considered the judge’s self-direction regarding the need for an arguable case and material change in circumstances and found that the father had not met this threshold.

The court endorsed the High Court judge’s findings that the father’s focus on the dispute with the mother, rather than the child’s welfare, had adversely affected the situation. The court also found that the father’s recent applications and appeal were aimed at achieving an outcome beneficial primarily to himself rather than the child, in contravention of the welfare principle.

Finally, the court concluded that the appeal was procedurally valid but entirely devoid of merit, justifying dismissal without a further hearing.

Holding and Implications

The court issued a DISMISSAL of the father’s appeal against the High Court’s August 2022 order refusing leave to issue a residence order application.

This decision directly ends the current appeal, confirming the continued validity of the existing orders concerning the child’s residence and contact. No new legal precedent was established. The court indicated it would consider representations on costs following this dismissal.