The applicants are members of the minor child's paternal family. The child, aged 4, was born from the marriage between the first and second applicants' son and the first respondent. The father (the applicants' son and the first respondent's husband) tragically died on 29 January 2024. The applicants allege that following his death, the first respondent unilaterally ceased all contact between the child and her paternal relatives. The applicants first threatened urgent legal action in May 2024 but only served papers in late July 2024. Under Part A of the notice of motion, they sought supervised contact with the child pending an investigation. Under Part B, they sought the appointment of a social worker to investigate the child's best interests regarding future access or contact. The first respondent opposed the application, arguing the urgency was self-created, the application lacked merit, and it should be struck from the roll.
The application was struck from the roll. Costs in respect of Part A of the application were ordered to stand over for determination when Part B is adjudicated.
The mere involvement of a minor child does not automatically confer urgency on an application. A party seeking urgent relief under Rule 6(12) must explicitly set forth circumstances rendering the matter urgent and provide compelling reasons why substantial redress cannot be obtained at a hearing in due course. A delay in bringing an urgent application, without satisfactory explanation, constitutes self-created urgency and is not a basis for circumventing normal court procedures.
The court expressed the hope that the parties would seek an amicable resolution serving the best interests of the child. The court noted that, while it may be in a child's best interests for extended family to play a role in her social and psychological development (citing LH v LA and LF v TV), these factors alone do not justify urgency. The court also questioned the applicants' true intentions in demanding the first respondent bear the costs of an expert investigation, suggesting that if the applicants were genuinely motivated they would have offered to bear the costs themselves. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the urgent court process to prevent abuse.
This judgment clarifies and reinforces the principle that matters involving minor children, while often inherently urgent, do not automatically qualify for urgent court intervention. It underscores that each case must be assessed on its specific facts and that self-created urgency is not tolerated. The judgment also promotes the use of conciliatory approaches in family disputes involving children, consistent with section 6(4) of the Children's Act, and provides guidance on managing urgent court rolls without compromising procedural fairness.