Renuka Calil v (1) Ely Calil (2) The Levantin Anstalt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 1368 |
| Date | 09 October 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B4/2006/0521 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1368
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE MUNBY)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers)
Lord Justice Thorpe and
Lord Justice Wilson
B4/2006/0521
MR MICHAEL MOSTYN QC and MISS REBECCA CAREN-POLE
(instructed by Messrs Payne Hicks Beach, London WC2A 3QG)
appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
MR EASON RAJAH (instructed by Messrs Taylor Wessing, London)
appeared on behalf of THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Judgement
Monday 9 October 2006
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
The second respondent has made it clear that the documents which are the subject matter of this appeal are available for inspection in any event. In these circumstances there is no need for this court to adjudicate upon the important issue of principle raised and we have decided that it would not be appropriate to do so. It follows that the appeal will be dismissed by consent. It should not be inferred from the fact that the second respondent has agreed to the disclosure sought that the order made by Munby J should not have been made. Equally, it should not be inferred from the fact that this appeal is now dismissed by consent that the order made by Munby J was in the circumstances an appropriate order.
It remains to deal with the question of costs. That is by no means an easy matter, having regard to the recent history of offer and counter-offer, to dispose of this matter in the way it has ultimately been disposed of. We consider that the judge who at the end of the day will deal with costs, and in particular where the costs of the hearing before Munby J ultimately fall, will be better placed than are we to resolve the issues of costs that have arisen as a result of the history of this appeal.
Accordingly, we shall adopt the course suggested in paragraph (d) of Taylor Wessing's letter of 28 September 2006, which is that costs shall be paid in the first instance out of the fund, but that the ultimate liability will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenys Goodenough and Another v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
...others, but held that he was bound to apply the law as explained by the Court of Appeal in Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1368, [2007] 1 WLR 398. It was not, therefore, necessary to prove that the officers were actually being attacked or under threat of attack.......