Allen v Allen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY,LORD JUSTICE ORR |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0626-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 June 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0626-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal.
(Appeal of Respondent, Husband, from Order of Mr. Justice Ormord Southampton, February 4, 1974.)
Lord Justice Buckley, and
Lord Justice Orr.
MR CRISTOPHER CLARK, (instructed by Messrs Saller, Chosshire & Predko of Southampton) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Father).
MISS MANJORIE GILLESPIE, (instructed by Messrs. J.M.S. Turner & Co. of Poole) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Mother).
This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Ormrod of the 4th February, 1974, in the Family Division of the High Court on an application consequent upon a decree nisi granted on the 4th February, 1974, relating to the disposition of the matrimonial assets and also custody and care and control of the of the three children of the marriage. The children of the family - and they are all children of this marriage - consist of a daughter who is now over the age of 18, a boy, Marcus, who is 15, and a younger boy, Nigel, who is 12.
The marriage first ran into difficulties in about September, 1969, when, in consequence of learning of an association between the father and another woman, the mother left the matrimonial home. Following on that, in June, 1970, the father obtained an Order in the magistrates' court awarding the custody of the children (or it may have been of the two boys: they are the only children with whom we are concerned) to him. There were subsequent attempts at a reconciliation. The mother returned to the matrimonial home in July, 1970, but left again in September of that year. She came back again in the following October, but finally left in September, 1971. The boys remained with their father at the matrimonial home, which is a house at Totton in Hampshire at 3, Abeotsfield, Water Lane, which is, I think, not very far from Southampton. The mother, of course, was not there with the children after her final departure in September, 1971.
The father, who is a civil servant employed full time in the Ordinance Survey Department, was left there looking after tne children, and he seems to have been quite successful in doing so, which is very much to his credit. As well as his employment in theOrdnance Survey Department, he owns two taxis, which are driven by drivers whom he employs for that purpose; and he also from time to time drives a taxi himself in the evenings after his working hours in the Ordnance Survey Department are over. His evidence was to the effect that recently he has been driving perhaps on two evenings a week.
For a little while a young lady named Miss Bush has been visiting the house in the evenings. It is not suggested that there is any improper relationship between the father and Miss Bush, but she is a friend of his, and she comes in practically every evening to keep him company and, I dare say, to help him to some extent in the running of his house. So she is available there when he is out on his taxi driving occupation.
The mother has been living in a flat on the other side of Southampton from the situation of the matrimonial home. So the two households are some miles apart. The eldest child of the family, the daughter Marie, has chosen to go and live with her mother in the flat, and the boys have been visiting their mother there at weekends from time to time under agreed access arrangements.
The learned judge regarded this matter, as he said, as a purely practical problem which was to be looked at on a purely practica1 level. Towards the end of his judgment he expressed himself in these terms: "I think this family really ought to be put together as far as possible, and I think the mother ought to have the care and control of these children until they are grown up, or at least until they are aged sixteen or whatever it is. She ought to go back and live in the house with them and make a matrimonial home for them." I think the word "matrimonial" there is really aslip and should be ignored. He recognised that the mother was a good mother, and so was the father a good father. But, as I understand his judgment, he approached the problem, treating the matter as a practical problem, in this way: What would be best in the interests of the family, and, in particular, of the two boys with whose custody he was concerned? He arrived at the view that the best thing in their interests would be that the matrimonial home should continue to be their home, but that their mother should be that one of their parents who should look after them there, where no doubt their sister, Marie, would also be in those circumstances, and so the family would be reunited so for us the present conditions permit.
In arriving at that conclusion, the learned judge said that there were three points which weighed with him. The first was that the younger boy was obviously missing his mother. In the welfare officer's report, what is said in reference to Nigel, the younger boy, is this: "In contrast to his brother he has definite views as to where he would prefer to live and he says that it is with his mother. Nigel says he misses his mother, he says also that he gets on with his father. He spends some time with his maternal grandmother who lives nearby and he has some school friends in the vicinity. He told me that he had his mid-day meal at school and that the evening meal was prepared by Miss Judy Bush. He says that he does not like Miss Bush but was unable to say why he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K. v K. (Minors: Property Transfer)
...of wide import. Its width is certainly not to be restricted in a provision such as section 11B. 28 As for authority, we were referred to Allen v. Allen [1974] 3 All ER 385, where Mr Justice Ormrod (as he then was), on an application relating to the disposition of the matrimonial assets and ......
-
T v S (Financial Provision for Children)
...Act 1989, s 15 and Sch 1 paras 3 and 4. Matrimonial Causes Act 1972, ss 23 and 29. Cases referred to in judgment: Allen v Allen [1974] 1 WLR 1171; [1974] 3 All ER 385. Chamberlain v Chamberlain [1973] 1 WLR 1557; [1974] 1 All ER 33. Griffiths v Griffiths [1984] Fam 70; [1984] 3 WLR 165; [19......
-
Sands v Sands and Ramsey
...chooses to sell it earlier, before the younger boy reaches the age of 18 years.” 33 See also Mesher v. Mesher [1980] 1 All E.R. 126 and Allen v. Allen [1974] 3 All E.R. 385. 34 In this case the house is in joint names and the marriage had lasted over nineteen (19) years in law and in view o......