Yan Wilheim BenjamminAssoun v Anais Amber Assoun [No 2]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Beatson |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 179 |
| Date | 28 March 2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B6/2015/4082 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 179
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
Mr James Ewins QC (instructed by Stewarts Law LLP) for the Appellant
Mr Alexander Thorpe (acting Pro Bono) for the Respondent
Approved Judgment
ASSOUN v ASSOUN [No 2]
On 25 January 2017 the Court was listed to hand down judgment in the appeal by Mr Assoun ('the husband') against the making of a Hadkinson order by His Honour Judge Brasse on 16 November 2015. That appeal has now been dismissed and the judgment in it is simultaneously published with this decision and is reported as Assoun v Assoun (No 1) (Hadkinson Application) [2017] EWCA Civ 21. The background circumstances and issues are described in that judgment which is incorporated into these reasons.
After the judgment had been circulated but before the date on which it was to be handed down, the husband sought permission to re-open the appeal before judgment was entered, to amend his grounds of appeal and to rely upon further evidence. The wife opposed that application and we gave directions adjourning the substantive appeal and granting permission to the parties to file further written submissions on the basis of a process that would have led either to a further hearing on the adjourned appeal if the husband had been successful in his application or to an oral hearing of his application if the husband had satisfied the court that there was an arguable case in respect of one or more of the bases for the same. The husband's position was formalised by an application notice dated 8 February 2017.
In the event, for the reasons which follow, the court is not satisfied that there is any basis for the husband's application. It is accordingly dismissed with the consequence that there is no necessity for a further hearing in the substantive appeal or in respect of the husband's application.
The husband in his written submissions sought to demonstrate the following:
a. That the court was relying on mistaken factual material in coming to its conclusions;
b. That the court's analysis of the Hadkinson principles in the context of the facts would be erroneous if based upon mistakes as to fact;
c. That the court's analysis of the husband's financial disclosure would likewise be wrong with the consequence that its conclusions as to the procedural regularity of the process and its own procedural integrity would be flawed;
d. That the court's construction of the intention and/or effect of the order of Gloster LJ of 19 May 2016 was wrong;
e. That there was a breach of natural justice.
It should be recollected that in Assoun (No 1) the court stated (at [11]) that it is not satisfied that its own conditions imposed upon the grant of permission to appeal have been satisfied by the husband and that the court decided to hear the appeal de bene esse in order to ensure that there had been no breach of any principle of natural justice by procedural...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yan Wilheim Benjammin Assoun v Anais Amber Assoun [No 1]
...written submissions by the parties on the issues which were raised. In a separate determination, reported as Assoun v Assoun No 2 [2017] EWCA Civ 179, the court refused the husband's application and, as a consequence of the submissions of the parties, provided limited further particulars of......
-
Yan Wilheim Benjammin Assoun v Anais Amber Assoun [No 3]
...process. The husband has already been denied the opportunity to re-open the appeal and to rely upon new evidence: ( Assoun [No 2] [2017] EWCA Civ 179). The second ground of objection to the payment-out is merely an attempt to get this court to change its mind. A costs application is not an ......