An order had been made for the wife to have exclusive occupation of the home and on its sale to receive 40% of the net proceeds. A recorder had acceded to a subsequent application by the husband under section 24A for the immediate sale of the home.
Held: The wife’s appeal against the order for sale succeeded, but the court #expressly rejected her contention that the recorder had had no jurisdiction to make an order under section 24A. She had alleged that it constituted an impermissible variation of such part of the property adjustment order as had conferred on her a right to occupy the home. But the effect of any order under section 24A on the property adjustment order was relevant to the discretionary exercise of the jurisdiction, which the recorder had not properly conducted, rather than to the existence of the jurisdiction conferred by the section when literally construed.
Judges:
Sir John Arnold P, Ralph Gibson LJ
Citations:
[1987] 1 FLR 142
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Birch v Birch SC 26-Jul-2017
The parties, on divorcing had a greed, under court order that W should obtain the release of H from his covenants under the mortgage of the family home. She had been unable to do so, and sought that order to be varied to allow postponement of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.643871