Narrow review jurisdiction and child welfare confidentiality limits permit consideration of counsellor reports in custody disputes.

Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise; on that principle, the High Court was not justified in reopening its earlier judgment. In child-custody and guardianship matters, ordinary mediation confidentiality remains protected, but the court's parens patriae duty and the child's best interests may justify consideration of counsellor and related evaluative reports. The reports here were treated as relevant welfare material rather than confidential settlement communications, so they were not barred from use in Family Court proceedings. The earlier judgment restoring consideration of those reports was reinstated.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction to set aside its earlier judgment; (ii) whether the mediator's and counsellor's reports in the child-custody context were protected by confidentiality so as to bar their use in court proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction to set aside its earlier judgment.

Analysis: Review lies only for correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. An error requiring a process of reasoning is not an error apparent. The High Court, in reopening the matter, acted as if sitting in appeal over its earlier decision rather than within the narrow limits of review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in exercising review jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the mediator's and counsellor's reports in the child-custody context were protected by confidentiality so as to bar their use in court proceedings.

Analysis: Mediation proceedings are ordinarily confidential, and parties' statements made in mediation cannot be used against them later. However, in custody and guardianship matters the court acts in parens patriae and must decide on the basis of the best interest of the child. The statutory scheme permits assistance from counsellors, and the relevant procedural rules recognize a limited departure from confidentiality where reports concerning the child's home environment, personality, and relationship with the parents assist the court. The reports here did not disclose confidential settlement communications but contained evaluative material relevant to the child's welfare.

Conclusion: The reports were not barred by confidentiality and could be considered by the Family Court.

Final Conclusion: The review judgment was set aside and the earlier judgment restoring consideration of the reports was reinstated, leaving the child-welfare material available for adjudication in the guardianship proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In custody and guardianship disputes, the welfare of the child and the court's parens patriae duty can justify consideration of counsellor material that aids assessment of the child's best interests, even though ordinary mediation communications remain confidential.

---