Spizewski v Spizewski
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,Sir GORDON WILLMER |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J0116-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 January 1970 |
[1970] EWCA Civ J0116-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of wife from judgment or order of Mr. Justice Ormrod made on the 27th December, 1968.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Pearson and
Sir Gordon Willmer
Mr. LLOYD DAVIES (instructed by Messrs. Tatton Gaskell & Tatton) appeared on behalf of the appellant wife.
Mr. P.J. MILLETT (instructed by Messrs. Karpkinski Kay & Co.) appeared on behalf of the respondent husband.
Mr. P. de la Piquerie appeared on behalf of the official Receiver.
In this case the husband and wife married as long ago as the 16th October, 1948. Both came from Poland. They have two boys who are now aged 16 and 17. Both husband and wife worked hard and did well. Quite early on they acquired a house, borrowing nearly all the money from a building society, paying it off by their joint efforts. In 1957 they sold the house and bought another house — 4 Baldwyn Gardens, Acton. They took it in their joint names with the usual declaration of trust for sale. They brought up their children there: and, as it was a large house, they took in lodgers to help with the expense.
Unfortunately in 1963 the marriage broke up. The wife left with one of the lodgers. The husband obtained a divorce and she married the lodger. The decree was made absolute in October 1964. Up to this time she had made no application to the Court about the house. After the divorce it was not possible for her to apply under section 17 of the 1882 Act. So she applied in the Chancery Division for a declaration as to her rights in the property and for sale of the house. The husband countered that move. Very properly he took out an application under section 17 of the 1965 Act to vary the settlement. The house was undoubtedly a family asset. It was a post-nuptial settlement. On this application to vary, the Court has a complete discretion. That is made clear in the recent case of Smith v. Smith. In the present case Mr. Justice Ormrod made an order under which the husband was to be at liberty to remain in the house rent free for his life, paying the outgoings; but if he died or if he ceased to live in the house, the property was to be sold and the proceeds divided between the two of them in equal shares. The matter has come before us for reconsideration. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial