Kevin Nash Wright Willmott (Appellant/Respondent) v Frances Ann Willmott (Respondent/Appellant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE,LORD JUSTICE DYSON |
| Judgment Date | 08 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 1642 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | B1/2003/1594 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1642
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
(MR JUSTICE HEDLEY)
lord Justice Thorpe
Lord Justice Dyson
B1/2003/1594
MR POINTER QC and MR HAY (instructed by MORGAN COLE) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented
This is the oral hearing of Mr Pointer's application for permission to appeal an order made by Hedley J sitting in Cardiff in the summer of 2003. His judgment was reserved and it determined an appeal brought by Mr Pointer from the fundamental determination of the wife's ancillary relief claims, which been made by District Judge North in the Cardiff County Court on 4th June 2002.
The application for permission is at first blush unpromising because, of course, there having been a completed appeal in the court of trial, an application for permission for a second appeal is caught by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Mr Pointer has delivered a very full skeleton, running to 21 pages. Although I doubt very much that he would make good all the points that he has advanced in the skeleton, it does seem to me that there are two questions of general application that are advanced in the skeleton.
The first is the extent to which in the application of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act and the search for a fair disposal, the Judge is entitled to invade the funds which have been settled on the respondent for life, admittedly with a power of advancement of capital but subject to clear direction from the settlor that the primary purpose of the settlement is to ensure the passage of monies through the generations.
The second point that seems to me of general application is whether Hedley J correctly directed himself in the perception of his role in determining an appeal controlled by Family Proceedings Rule 8.13. Arguably, Hedley J adopted too restrictive an approach in assessing whether the court's interference should be limited to cases in which the District Judge's award exceeded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B vB
...SpA v. Arab Ins. Group (BSC), [2003] 1 W.L.R. 577; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 140; [2003] 2 C.L.C. 242; [2003] Lloyd”s Rep. I.R. 131; [2003] EWCA Civ 1642, observations of Clarke L.J. referred to. (3) B(M) v. B(J), 2010 (1) CILR 416, referred to. (4) F (Child: Permission to Relocate), Re, [20......