Temple v Temple
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Orr |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J0402-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 02 April 1976 |
[1976] EWCA Civ J0402-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Appeal of Defendant from Order of Mr. Justice Cusack, London, dated January 10, 1976.)
Lord Justice Cairns and
Lord Justice Orr.
MRS. M. FUXTON, (instructed by Messrs. Israel Joslin & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
MR. P. SINGER, (instructed by Messrs. Philip Kossoff & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
ground of conduct, the wife having by hop answer of the 22nd November, 1974, denied too conduct alleged against her, but not having ross-prayed. There are or will be applications for financial relief In that suit.
In addition to the divorce suit the husband had started proceedings under Section 17 of the Married Woman's Property Act 1882 in respect of monies in the wife's bank account, and in respect of a freehold property which stands in the name of the wife, but which, according to the husband, was purchased with his money. The mater must have taken the view that, having regard to those other financial disputes between the husband and wife in the Family Division, it was convenient that this further dispute as to the maintenance agreement and the alleged arrears there under should be tried in the Family Division.
However, on appeal to Mr. Justice Cusack that decision was reversed The learned Judge gave reasons for his decision, of which I am glad to say in this case a very helpful note was made by counsel or solicitors. The judge pointed out that the Family division has no procedure equivalent to an Order 14 summons. It is agreed in this court that that is a correct statement. Mr. Justice Cusack went on to say: "If the Family Division gave judgment for money sum due under a contract, there are no facilities for enforcing that judgment." It is common ground in this court that that was a misunderstanding on the part of the judge. It is not argued that there are no such facilities, and it is accepted that by means of fiery facias or otherwise the Family Division could enforce an order for payment of a money sum. The learned judge went on to accept that all judges of the Supreme Court have equalpowers, and he said that if these different natters had to be considered in the Family Division they would have to he taken in order, not all at one tine. He assented that if Judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ho Kiang Fah v Toh Buan
...proceeding by a writ action gave H access to the O14 procedure to have the dispute determined summarily. H relied upon Temple v Temple [1976] 1 WLR 701 in support of his proposition. Since that case held that it was possible to sue to enforce a maintenance agreement, by the same token and a......
-
Janet Elaine Carley (Respondent (Plaintiff) v Nigel Wayne Carley (Appellant
...be back-dated indefinitely—only to the date of proceedings. If that were not so, it would be difficult to give effect to the decision in Temple v. Temple [1976] 3 All E.R. 12, which safeguards the right of the wife to proceed under Order 14 in respect of sums due under a maintenance agreeme......