Stanton v Stanton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LADY JUSTICE HALE |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 87 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | B1/2002/2411 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 87
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND A STAY OF EXECUTION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE YELTON)
Lady Justice Hale
B1/2002/2411
The Applicant appeared in person
The Respondent was not represented and did not attend
This is an application for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Yelton in Colchester County Court on 28 October 2002. He dismissed the applicant's appeal against an order made by District Judge Molle on 19 June 2001 in ancillary relief proceedings between the applicant and his former wife. This therefore is a second appeal for the purpose of Section 55 (1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. In other words, it is an appeal from the decision of a court which was itself taken on an appeal. That means that this court can only give permission to appeal if the appeal raises an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard. That is a very substantial hurdle for the applicant to surmount and particularly so in the circumstances of this case.
It also happens to be a second appeal in a different sense. The applicant tried to appeal when District Judge Molle made the first order but both the district judge and later His Honour Judge Brandt were under the mistaken impression that permission to appeal was needed. That is understandable because in other types of civil proceedings permission is needed but not in family proceedings. For that reason permission to appeal to this court was given by Lord Justice Wadr on 25 February 2002. On 27 June 2002 the appeal was allowed with consent and the case was sent back to the county court for a full appeal hearing. That was the hearing that took place before His Honour Judge Yelton in October 2002.
The parties were married in 1966. They have three children who are now grown up. Their former matrimonial home is an attractive property called Millfields in a Suffolk village which was bought in joint names at the end of 1978. Some time after that an extension was built and the applicant's case is that this was financed by money coming from his family. His father moved into the property. In 1994 the wife moved out. The circumstances of her doing so are not relevant to this application. As a matter of fact, by that time the lady to whom the applicant is now married had moved into the property. The parties were divorced in 1997. The most significant fact in the case is that a final order in ancillary relief proceedings was made by consent by District Judge Gypps on 2 March 1998 and drawn up on 6 March. That provided for the applicant to pay the wife, as I shall call her, a lump sum of £2,500 and went on as follows:
"2 The petitioner [the wife] do within 28 days hereof transfer to the Respondent [the husband] all her legal and beneficial interest in Millfields subject to the mortgage and the Respondent do execute a Charge in the terms of the draft annexed hereto in favour of the Petitioner over Millfields in respect of 50% of the net equity upon the following terms:
i such Charge not to be enforced until the first of the following:
(a) the intervenor ceasing to occupy the property as his residence
(b) the death of the intervenor
(c) further order of the Court.
ii the net equity is to be calculated as the sale price of Millfields less the costs of sale and of redeeming the balance then outstanding of the mortgage and less the sum of £14,000 being further existing borrowing by the Respondent."
The intervenor was the applicant's father who had for obvious reasons been given leave to intervene in the proceedings. All those parties were at that stage represented by reputable firms of solicitors. The order was clearly the product of extensive negotiation between the parties. It is expressed to be by consent. The paperwork to effect the transfer of the wife's interest to the husband and the execution of the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithkline Beecham Plc v Apotex Europe Ltd (No. 3)
...valid. These proceedings were before Pumfrey J whose decision [2002] EWHC 1373 (Ch) was upheld by the Court of Appeal [2004] IP&T 846, [2003] EWCA Civ 87As a consequence of these findings SKB successfully applied to amend the patent to restrict the monopoly to that claimed in those two clai......