Baker v Rowe: CA 6 Nov 2009

H and W, though very elderly, set out for a divorce. A former son-in-law now appealed against a costs order made against him as an intervener under the 1996 Act. The parties disputed his right to appeal without permission.
Held: Under the Family Rules, no consent would be required. 1996 Act proceedings would not be family proceedings. The fact that the 1996 Act had been used did not prevent the proceedings being Family proceedings. However: ‘the son-in-law’s proposed appeal to this court would be a second appeal and that, in accordance with s.55(1) of the Act of 1999 and Rule 52.13(2) of the the Rules of 1998, we cannot give permission unless we consider that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or that there is some other compelling reason for us to hear it.’ Such a point was provided.
The clear purpose behind Rule 2.71(4)(a) of the Rules of 1991 requires its unfocussed reference to ‘ancillary relief proceedings’ to be construed narrowly; and the proceedings before the district judge, as they ultimately developed, were in connection with ancillary relief but not for ancillary relief. Here, the district judge was entitled to pay substantial regard to the fact that the daughter’s assertions had prevailed; that the son-in-law’s assertions had not prevailed; and perhaps in particular, that in 1996 they had both expressly agreed that he would not assert any claim to the property, including obviously any claim to an existing beneficial interest in it. Though legally aided, the costs order against him was appropriate.

Ward, Wilson, Leverson LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1162, [2010] 1 FCR 413, [2010] 2 Costs LR 175, [2010] Fam Law 17, [2010] 1 FLR 761
Family Proceedings Rules 1991 8.1(1), Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Supreme Court Act 1981 Sch 1
England and Wales
CitedRiniker v University College London (Practice Note) CA 5-Apr-2001
The Employment Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal which does not set out to disturb any part of the order made by the original tribunal. There is no inherent power in the Court of Appeal to bypass the prohibition in . .
CitedTebbutt v Haynes 1981
A finding in ancillary relief proceedings is not binding on others who were not themselves parties, and third parties should be allowed to be joined if necessary.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘It seems to me that, under section 24 of the 1973 Act, if . .
CitedJudge v Judge and others CA 19-Dec-2008
The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.377776