Scheeres v Scheeres
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE OTTON,LORD JUSTICE THORPE |
| Judgment Date | 23 September 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWCA Civ J0923-1 |
| Date | 23 September 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | FC2 98/6919/2 |
[1998] EWCA Civ J0923-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CARDIFF COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER PHILIP REES)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Otton
Lord Justice Thorpe
FC2 98/6919/2
CCFMI 98/0330/2
MR M POINTER QC and MISS CA JONES (Instructed by Messrs Alan R Fraser, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan CF64 1XG) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MRS J CROWLEY QC and MISS L MOREAU (Instructed by Messrs Robert Meurig Williams & Co., Cardiff) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Wednesday 23rd September, 1998
I shall invite Lord Justice Thorpe to give the first judgment.
Mr and Mrs Scheeres are each in their early forties. They married in 1988. I think for each it was a second marriage. Twins were born to them on 25th November 1991, so they are six, and S, one of the twins, is Down's Syndrome.
The husband has always worked in and effectively run a family company, producing technical products with headquarters in South Wales and a satellite in Co. Durham. The final matrimonial home was bought in January 1993 for £209,000, of which £189,000 was borrowed, although that initial high mortgage was reduced by £30,000 approximately nine months later. All that was achieved shortly before the final separation which took place in early 1994. There were proceedings and in May the District Judge accepted undertakings by the husband to pay all sorts of outgoings, and periodical payments to the wife were ordered at the rate of £6,000 per annum. The degree was made absolute a few days later.
In July 1995 the husband and the lady with whom he was then living bought a home in South Wales for £177,000 of which £168,000 was borrowed. They married in May 1996 and by the marriage the husband acquired three step children of whom only one is below the age of 18. Ancillary relief came before Mr Recorder Rees on 31st October 1997 when he ordered the husband to transfer the final matrimonial home to the wife. He accepted an undertaking by the husband to pay the modest annual premium of £600 on the wife's pension policy. He adjourned her claim for lump sum generally and he ordered periodical payments to the wife at £18,000 a year. There is no reference to periodical payments to the children, since there had been an assessment under the Child Support Act 1991 in the sum of £7,596 per annum, which was collected by the Agency direct from the husband's salary by way of attachment.
The husband had been advised by solicitors during the interlocutory stages but appeared before the learned Recorder in person. He subsequently sought advice on a possible appeal and, having made a change of solicitor, arrived at his present legal team, who have effectively represented him in the interim since judgment in the court below. It seems that on the advice of his former solicitor, he paid nothing to the wife after judgment until in January of this year she issued a judgment summons in respect of arrears that had then accumulated. Those proceedings were compromised on 28th March, when the husband gave an undertaking to pay £500 on three specific dates, and the application for judgment summons was adjourned to the first open day after four months. We are told today by Mrs Crowley, for the wife, that the husband paid those three specific sums and no more. Mr Pointer, for the husband, says that in reality he has maintained those monthly payments beyond the obligation of the undertaking, right up to today.
The appeal raises two questions. The first and simpler is whether the judge was right to have adjourned the wife's lump sum application generally. The second and more difficult question is whether he should have quantified the wife's periodical payments as high as £18,000 a year. The first and short point I would decide in Mr Pointer's favour. The judge kept the lump sum alive for a specific purpose which he explained on page 4 of the judgment. He said that the adjourned lump sum:
"… may be revived at a later date if and when increased prosperity on the [husband's] part justifies further consideration being given to a clean break order."
While I can understand the thinking that lay behind that expression, it seems to me that is more convenient, where the wife's capital claims have plainly been fully resolved by a transfer of property order, that the order for lump sum should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
XW v XH
...the well-established principle that a judgment must be sufficiently reasoned to explain the court's decision. 84 In Scheeres v Scheeres [1999] 1 FLR 241, Thorpe LJ said, at p.243 G/H: “It is very important in these ancillary relief cases, where the court exercises a very broad discretion, t......
-
Monica Jane Ramnarine v Chandra Bose Ramnarine (Trinidad & Tobago)
...the above matters because they were all relevant under section 27(1) and the exercise thereunder has to be conducted rigorously (see Scheeres v Scheeres in the English Court of Appeal, [1999] 1 FLR 241 at p 243G). The discharge of the judge's duty under the subsection would more easily hav......
-
D v D (Financial Provision: Lump Sum Order)
...v Davies [1986] 1 FLR 497, CA. MT v MT (financial provision: lump sum) [1991] 1 FCR 649, [1992] 1 FLR 362. Scheeres v Scheeres[1999] 2 FCR 476, [1999] 1 FLR 241, T v T (financial relief: pensions) [1998] 2 FCR 364, [1998] 1 FLR 1072. White v White[2000] 3 FCR 555, [2001] 1 All ER 1, [2000] ......
-
Shlomo Zalman Kliers v Miriam Kliers
...to go back for more than 20 years to find many of the relevant authorities. Mr Wood for the husband referred me to Scheeres v Scheeres [1999] 1 FLR 241, where Thorpe LJ said, at p.243 G/H: “It is very important in these ancillary relief cases, where the court exercises a very broad discreti......