Rose v Rose (Divorce: Consent Orders) (No.2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 2002 |
| Date | 20 February 2002 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Buxton.
Matrimonial - divorce - financial dispute resolution hearings - outline agreements recorded by a judge are unperfected court orders and binding
In divorce proceedings, an outline agreement between the parties recorded by a judge at a financial dispute resolution hearing was in effect the making by the judge of an unperfected court order in the agreed terms. Accordingly one party was not entitled to resile from that agreement before it was perfected and seek to go for trial.
The Court of Appeal so held, allowing the appeal of the wife, Julia Caroline Rose, against the decision of Mr Justice Coleridge on October 19, 2001 on the application of the husband, Jonathan Hugh Rose, to re-open the terms of the agreement approved at a financial dispute resolution hearing by Mr Justice Bennett on August 3, 2001, confirming the order of the judge and ordering that the further hearing dates fixed be vacated.
Miss Florence Baron, QC and Ms Deborah Bangay for the wife; Mr Nicholas Mostyn, QC and Mr Lewis Marks for the husband.
LORD JUSTICE THORPE said that the parties married in 1984 and had two children. They separated in 2000. Their divorce was made absolute in February 2001.
The real issue was the price to be paid by the husband for a clean break. The financial issue was created by the extent of the husband's fortune.
The financial dispute resolution hearing was fixed before Mr Justice Bennett. Evidence and written submissions were filed in advance.
On August 3 the judge heard oral submissions, then retired to consider the broad indication he would give as to outcome should the case go for contested hearing. He gave that indication in a reasoned statement.
On what was the key question for the husband, the judge found for the wife. The parties negotiated. Eventually the husband accepted the wife's proposal. The terms were put before the judge, who stated that he was happy to record the agreement. Detailed drafting was not attempted.
The husband subsequently felt unable to implement the agreement. At a hearing before Mr Justice Coleridge on October 19 at which the wife sought an order that the terms of Mr Justice Bennett's order be finalised, Mr Justice Coleridge took the view that all that August 3 had produced was an agreement approved by the judge, not a final order. He gave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v Foster
...followed. (8) Myerson v. Myerson (No. 2), [2010] 1 W.L.R. 114; [2009] 2 F.C.R. 1; [2009] EWCA Civ 282, followed. (9) Rose v. Rose, [2003] 2 F.L.R. 197; [2003] EWHC 505 (Fam), followed. Legislation construed: Grand Court Rules 1995, O.18, r.19(1): ‘The Court may at any stage of the proceedin......
-
MG v FG
...(financial remedies: schedule 1) [2012] EWHC 1382, [2012] 2 FLR 1426. Rose v Rose (divorce: consent orders) (no 2)[2003] EWHC 505 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 197. Rubin v Rubin[2014] EWHC 611 (Fam), [2014] 1 WLR 3289, [2014] 2 FLR Wyatt v Vince[2015] UKSC 14, [2015] 1 FCR 566, [2015] 2 All ER 755, ......
-
AB v CD
...overriding importance of finalising litigation promptly and conclusively (see Thorpe LJ in Burns v Burns [2004] EWCA Civ 1258). Indeed, in Rose v Rose [2003] 2 FLR 197, CC J held that a delay of one year between the discovery of the alleged non-disclosure and the issuing of an application t......
-
Myerson v Myerson
...the judge is presented with a contract which needs to be drafted technically into the form of an acceptable order: see Rose v Rose [2002] 1 FLR 978 or the present case. Any disagreement between counsel as to how the contract should be expressed in the language of the court can clearly be re......