Yan Wilheim Benjammin Assoun v Anais Amber Assoun [No 3]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Ernest Ryder,Lord Justice Beatson |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 370 |
| Date | 18 May 2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B6/2015/4082 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 370
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT IN LONDON
His Honour Judge Brasse
FD06D05405
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Beatson
THE SENIOR PRESIDENT OF TRIBUNALS
Case No: B6/2015/4082
Approved Judgment
Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President:
The Respondent wife makes application for payment-out of £30,000 that was ordered to be paid into court by Gloster and Macur LJJ on 14 July 2016. The basis for the application for payment-out to the wife is that she is still owed more than that sum by the Respondent Husband and the husband lost his appeal against the Hadkinson order to which the £30,000 payment relates.
The husband opposes the payment-out on the basis that a) the purpose behind the direction was to provide legal representation which was provided pro bono rather than to fund any indebtedness and b) in any event, the wife has not been frank in her approach to this and other courts about the outstanding debt. The husband further submits that he should have the right to prioritise repayment of his debts to best serve his own interests which would include, for example, purging his contempt so that he might regain access to the court.
My Lord, Beatson LJ and I have decided to determine the application on the written evidence and submissions provided by the parties. The submissions are based in well rehearsed arguments already made by the parties during the oral contested appeal hearing and the subsequent written application to re-open the same. It would be disproportionate to provide an opportunity for a further oral hearing thereby increasing the costs and indebtedness that exists in order to hear the same arguments again.
This application was foreshadowed in the court's first judgment; Assoun [2017] EWCA 21 at [11] and [40]. In that judgment the court referred expressly to the purpose originally intended by Gloster LJ at [6] and by Gloster LJ and Macur LJ at [9]. The plain meaning of the words used by Gloster LJ in adjourning the permission to appeal hearing to a two judge court on 19 May 2016 was that the payment into court was to reflect a significant part of the debt owed by the husband to the wife. I acknowledge that the order made on 14 July 2016 (after a hearing on 13 July 2016)...
To continue reading
Request your trial