Court of Appeal
Miscellaneous Proceedings No 50 of 2017
Lam V-P and Bebe Chu J
5 January 2018

Family law — children — access — interim interim order granting access — appeal against exercise of discretion not appropriate, unless extremely plain decision was wrong

The Judge granted F an interim interim access order, but declined unsupervised access to the children. F applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the Judge erred in according undue weight to the concerns of the previous supervisor and not accepting the recommendation of the expert for unsupervised access.

Held, dismissing the application, that:

  • Interim interim arrangements concerning children were in the discretion of the judge and meant to be temporary, provisional and very short-term pending a full inquiry. (See paras. 3–7.)
  • The Court of Appeal was not the forum for the parties to make a second attempt when they failed at first instance. That was not a proper use of an appeal. Unless it was extremely plain that the judge had gone wrong, the parties should not appeal against the exercise of discretion (Edwards v. Edwards [1986] 1 FLR 205, Re J [1989] 2 FLR 304 applied). (See paras. 6, 8.)
  • On the facts here, the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. It was not reasonably arguable that the Judge had gone plainly wrong. The weight to be attached to the concern in light of the other evidence was very much a matter for the Judge. (See para. 9.)


This was an application by the respondent-husband for leave to appeal against an interim interim order of the Judge for supervised access to the children. The facts are set out in the judgment.


Thomson Reuters – Sweet & Maxwell are the publishers of the Authorised Hong Kong Law Reports & Digest ("HKLRD") and the Authorised Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Reports ("HKCFAR"), and providers of Westlaw HK ( /