Hall v Hall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GRIFFITHS,SIR ROGER ORMROD |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Civ J0413-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 83/0173 |
| Date | 13 April 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Civ J0413-3
Lord Justice Griffiths
and
Sir Roger Ormrod
83/0173
80 D 1185
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr. Justice Balcombe)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. J.H. MUIR (instructed by Messrs Maycocks, Hull) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Petitioner).
MISS LORNA COLE (instructed by Messrs Gosschalk Wheldon & Co., Hull) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Respondent).
I will ask Sir Roger Ormrod to give the first judgment.
This is an appeal by a former wife from an order made by Mr. Justice Balcombe in financial proceedings on 11th February 1983. The order which the learned judge ultimately made was for periodical payments in the sum of £50 per month for the wife and £78 per month for each of the children, making a total order of £206 per month or £52 per week.
The main problem on this appeal has arisen on conduct but when one comes to look at the actual figures, it turns out to be a more or less academic issue. The husband specifically raised conduct in the proceedings, which meant that the matter had to be referred to the High Court to be determined. He made complaints about the wife that, during the marriage she associated with another man or men and various other complaints about which we need say nothing because in his judgment the learned judge came to the conclusion that he did not regard the allegations of conduct during the marriage as relevant to the issue that he had to consider, namely, as to whether conduct should be taken into account insofar as financial provision was concerned, and if so by how much. But there was one incident which the husband relied on and which the learned judge thought he was entitled to take into account, an episode which occurred after the parties had separated and while the divorce proceedings were pending, when no doubt feelings were running high. This incident took place in April 1981 when the wife went round to the husband's mother's house where the husband was with a Mrs. Edwards, with whom he was then associating and still is living. What precisely happened is not altogether clear, but it is clear that the wife stabbed the husband in the abdomen with a knife on that occasion.
The only difference between the two accounts of the incident is that the wife said she went round to protest about telephone calls, she was obviously very angry and she says that the husband came towards her; from her previous experience of the violence during the marriage she thought she was going to be assaulted, so she picked up a knife and stabbed him with it. The husband says that he made no threatening gesture of any kind towards her and she stabbed him simply because she was furiously jealous.
The wife was ultimately convicted. She did not put forward a defence of self-defence and this is obviously not a case where self-defence could be run.
That is a very unusual episode, to put it no higher, in a matrimonial case. The only question is whether the judge was entitled to take it into account in carrying out the exercise laid down in the court by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which requires the court to take into account conduct if it is of a relevant kind. There are many well-known cases such as Wachtel, which deal with the question of what sort of conduct is to be taken into account. For my part I would have thought that this episode was conduct which ought to be taken into account. It has nothing to do with the ordinary run of fighting and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B v B (Ancillary Relief)
...the conduct appe ared to be mani festly serio us. The conduct can only b e such, he noted, as Sir Roger Ormrod described in Hall v Hall [1984] FLR 631 as “nothing to do wi th the ordinary run of fighting and quarrelling in an unhappy marriage” and which the judge's “sense of justice require......
-
S v S (Non-Matrimonial Property: Conduct); S v S (Divorce: Distribution of Assets)
...stab wounds on her husband with a knife. iv) S v S [1982] Fam 183: husband commits incest with children of the family. v) Hall v Hall [1984] FLR 631: wife stabs husband in the abdomen with a knife. vi) Kyte v Kyte [1987] 3 AER 1041: wife facilitates the husband's attempted suicide. vii) Eva......
-
S v D
...wounds on her husband with a knife. iv) S v S (1982) 12 Fam Law 183: husband commits incest with children of the family. v) Hall v Hall [1984] FLR 631: wife stabs husband in the abdomen with a knife. vi) Kyte v Kyte [1987] 3 AER 1041: wife facilitates the husband's attempted suicide. vii) E......
-
J v J
...that the conduct appeared to be manifestly serious. The conduct can only be such, he noted, as Sir Roger Ormrod described in Hall v Hall [1984] FLR 631 as “nothing to do with the ordinary run of fighting and quarrelling in an unhappy marriage” and which the judge’s “sense of justice require......