Dr Salem Gossiel v Hawa Ibrahim Gossiel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WARD |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B1/03/1980 |
| Date | 20 November 2003 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1990
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLIFFE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Ward
B1/03/1980
The Applicant appeared in person.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Dr Gossiel very courteously makes his application for permission to appeal against the order made by His Honour Judge Cliffe, sitting in the Leeds Combined Court on 28 July 2003, when he ordered that an application to allow Dr Hamdoon to give evidence be refused. More importantly, he dismissed Dr Gossiel's appeal against the order that had been made by District Judge Birkby sitting in the Sheffield County Court on 10 June 2002. By that latter order, the district judge ordered that the former matrimonial home of the parties be placed on the market for sale by 1 December 2002. The husband, Dr Gossiel, was to vacate it by that date and the net proceeds were to be divided as to two-thirds to the wife and one-third to the husband.
This is another of these unhappy cases arising out of the breakdown of a long marriage. The parties married in 1971 in Libya. They were citizens of Libya, although they have been living here for a number of years as genuine refugees from persecution in Libya and now have British citizenship. There are seven children of this marriage, the youngest of whom is a boy aged 15.
The matrimonial home was valued then at about £95,000. After discharging the mortgage, an equity of about £60,000 would have been left. The effect of the order for sale is not going to produce a great deal of satisfaction for either of these parties as the costs of the proceedings are horrendous as usual. The whole of the husband's share is likely to go to the liability for costs and part of the wife's share will be taken to meet her costs on legal aid. Both parties will be dependent upon, and living in, rented accommodation. The wife is already satisfactorily accommodated, the husband is not. What is crucially difficult for him is the fact that he has remarried and has two young children, a boy aged 1 and a girl of 2. He fears that if the order takes effect he will be homeless. I read with concern letters which he has placed before me in which the local authority do not seem to be able, or are perhaps unwilling, to provide him with accommodation. That is not a matter with which I can deal today.
The district judge made crucial findings of fact that the wife (as I shall call her despite the divorce) was likely to remain in rented accommodation and that she had no intention of purchasing other property. The husband wished to remain in the matrimonial home, but the judge was satisfied that:
"Insufficient funds would be generated for Dr Gossiel to purchase [another home]. But I am confident that, given his current financial circumstances, and given time, he, his partner and child, could obtain rented accommodation of a reasonable standard in the public or private sector."
The district judge ordered a sale because he concluded that that was in the interests of the defendant and the child, Abdo. It would enable the wife to discharge arrears of rent and provide some cushion for maintaining the boy.
Sadly, Dr Gossiel, after a fruitful working life, is now incapacitated from working and dependent upon Social Security benefits. The need for finality demanded an order for a sale. The district judge awarded the wife the greater share because of the continuing obligation she would bear to provide for the boy.
Dealing with the crucial element in this case, the district judge said:
"22. I should say at this stage that Dr Gossiel's partner and Ishmail are of no relevance under section 25 of he Matrimonial Causes Act, save as to my having to consider 'all the circumstances'. But apart from that, they are of no relevance."
It was that finding in particular which led to the appeal to the circuit judge. Dr Gossiel is concerned because he believes that before the hearing commenced before the judge his wife's solicitors and counsel were in the judge's room. He is concerned that matters may have been discussed in his absence.
Whether that happened or not, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial