Young v Young
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE ACKNER,LORD JUSTICE PURCHAS |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Civ J1202-6 |
| Docket Number | 82/0840 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 02 December 1982 |
[1982] EWCA Civ J1202-6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAIDSTONE COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE KEE)
Royal Courts of Justice,
Lord Justice Waller
Lord Justice Ackner
Lord Justice Purchas
82/0840
NO. OF MATTER 81D 267
MR ADRIAN COOPER (instructed by Messrs. Bracher Son & Miskin) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Husband).
MRS GAYLE HALLON (instructed by John Morley & Company) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Wife).
This is an appeal, by his leave, from a decision of His Honour Judge Kee, sitting at Maidstone County Court on the 28th July. He was giving a decision on an appeal from Deputy Registrar Hubbard, varying a Property Adjustment Order made by the Deputy Registrar.
The parties were married in March 1964; a daughter was born in October 1965 and a son in July 1968.
In February 1981, the wife left the matrimonial home and, with the two children, now lives with the co-respondent. At the date of leaving, there was a sum of £3,800 in the wife's name in the building society, and a sum of £7,000 in joint names in that building society.
It was agreed that the net value of the matrimonial home could be taken as £25,000.
An interim order of £15 per week for each of the children was made in May, 1981, and the husband paid, under this order, for some six months. But thereafter he fell out of employment and did not pay.
By the time of the hearing before the learned Judge, the wife had spent some £2,500 of the fund in her own name, leaving a balance of £1,400. This money had been spent partly on payment in connection with her own business, partly on the purchase of beds and other things for the children, and partly for the maintenance of the children. At £15 a week each this figure of maintenance for the children would be in excess of £1,500.
At the time of the separation, the husband was in work but he was made redundant in May, 1981. He had not obtained regular work after that and it was not clear precisely what he was doing.
The learned Judge, in his judgment, described that as a "grey area", and the notes of evidence before the Deputy Registrar illustrated the uncertainty which the learned Judge felt.
The Deputy Registrar made nominal orders of 80 pence per week for the two children and made an award in these terms: "(l) The petitioner do pay or cause to be paid peridical payments to the respondent during their joint lives until such date as she shall re-marry or further order at the rate of 50 pence per annum. (2) The petitioner do pay or cause to be paid periodical payments to the children…..until they shall respectively attain the age of 17 years or further order at the rate of 80 pence per week. (3) The petitioner do pay the respondent the sum of £12,000 within 3 months of today upon payment of which the respondent do transfer her interest in the matrimonial home……" with an order if that fails for the home to be sold. "(4) The money at present in the joint account…..to be entirely the respondents"—that is the wife's. There were some other orders which I do not need to repeat.
On appeal to the learned Judge he varied the order by allowing the husband £1,750 out of the joint account, and also a variation of the date for the sale of the house, into which I need not go further.
The husband now appeals against the learned Judge's decision on the ground that the order was unjust and inequitable to the petitioner—that is the husband—in that it granted to the wife:"……….excessive capital provision from the matrimonial assets taking into account the relevant factors under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973".
Before us Mr Cooper, on behalf of the husband, has made his main submission on that matter, namely, that the learned Judge had not paid attention to the provisions of Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and in particular to the last part, namely the words:"……and so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and having regard to their conduct just to do so, in the financial position in which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial