Maskell v Maskell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE,MR. JUSTICE BELL |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 858 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B1/00/3065 |
| Date | 08 May 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 858
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CHELMSFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge O'Brien)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Thorpe
Mr. Justice Bell
B1/00/3065
THE APPLICANT (assisted by Dr Pelling) appeared in Person.
MR. J. SIMISON (instructed by Messrs Whiskers, Harlow, Essex) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner.
This is an application for permission to appeal with appeal to follow if permission granted. It comes to this court as a result of an order made by Rix J on 10th November 2000. The applicant before him, as before us today, is Mr. Trevor John Maskell in person. The application today is opposed by Mr. Simison on behalf of Carol Linda Maskell. They were formerly married and were respectively the applicant petitioner and the respondent to ancillary relief proceedings, which came for final hearing to District Judge Pearl sitting in the Harlow County Court on 29th October 1999.
Seemingly, as a result of Mr. Maskell's long employment in the printing trade, the parties at that date owned a property which was heavily mortgaged but still had an equity of about £26,000. They also had two policies of insurance, one or both of which were probably charged to support the borrowings. The value of both was about £10,000, and seemingly one was worth a little more than the other. The order made by the district judge was that the wife should receive the whole of the equity in the home together with the more valuable of the two policies.
I find that order very difficult to understand against the background that there were three children of the family, born respectively in 1987, 1989 and 1992, who were in the shared care of their parents, alternating week and week about with each. That situation had been in being, seemingly to the benefit of the children, since the wife's departure from the matrimonial home in June 1995. The only other asset that was within the district judge's assessment was a pension, which had a CTV of about £31,000 or £32,000 at that date. Mr. Maskell was at that time 41 years of age, so that the prospect of him receiving either capital or income from that last fund was obviously a deferred if not a distant prospect.
After the ruling of the district judge there were subsequent hearings in the county court, one on 14th July 2000 in which the judge ordered Mr. Maskell to vacate by a specific date, and there was a third hearing before another district judge on the day that he was required to vacate refusing his application for a stay. So Mr. Maskell then applied to the circuit judge for an extension of time to appeal the order of District Judge Pearl. There was also before Judge O'Brien an application by Mrs Maskell for Mr. Maskell's committal for breach of the order requiring him to vacate. The judge had the advantage of counsel on behalf of both parties on that date. Counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Janie Claire Martin v Rupert Henry James Martin
...own right. An example of this, although much less significant now with pension sharing orders, is pension funds. In Maskell v Maskell [2003] 1 FLR 1138, Thorpe LJ allowed an appeal because the judge had “failed to compare like with like” when equating “present capital” with a pension fund, ......
-
Martin-Dye v Martin-Dye
...a work of art. These distinctions have been partially drawn in previous decisions of this court: see Cowan v Cowan [2001] 2 FLR 192 and Maskell v Maskell [2003] 1 FLR 1138. 49 Before the District Judge this issue was almost submerged under a plethora of other contentions. However in his ope......
-
Norris v Norris
...75 per cent of the fund by 75 at the latest. 71 I have had paragraph 69 of Cowan drawn to my attention by Mr Mostyn, together with Maskell v Maskell [2001] EWCA Civ 858. Cowan is distinguishable, in my judgment, because the fund had vested. In Maskell the fund had not vested, the husband b......
-
K v K
...EWCA Civ 681; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 3448; [2006] 4 All E.R. 779; [2006] 2 FLR 901, referred to. (5) Maskell v. Maskell, [2001] EWCA 856; [2003] 1 FLR 1138; [2001] 3 F.C.R. 296, referred to. (6) Miller v. Miller, [2006] UKHL 24; [2006] 2 A.C. 618; [2006] 2 W.L.R. 1283; [2006] 3 All E.R. 1; [2006] ......