Judgment on the ‘edge of brevity’

In Re H (a child) CA Civ Div (20 May); SJ 1 June p29

The parties, who were not married, had a nine-year-old child. After they separated there ensued various family proceedings before the same family judge, culminating in applications by both parties for a residence order, coupled with the mother’s indication that she intended to move to Australia. The judge granted her application and because he was anxious that the parties would know where they stood he had delivered an ex-tempore judgment at the end of the court day. The judgment ran to four pages and the father contended that (1) it was unacceptably brief and failed to fulfill the minimum requirement that it should explain to the parents the reasons for the decision that it encompassed all the considerations set out in s13 Children Act 1989; and (2) the judge should have appointed a guardian ad litem pursuant to the family proceedings rules FPR 1991 Rule 9.5 to represent the child’s interests.