The former practice in ancillary relief applications where a circuit judge hearing an appeal from a district judge could admit new evidence and hear the case de novo should not survive the new rules, and should cease. An appeal to the circuit judge is not a re-hearing but a review of the exercise of the district judge’s exercise of a discretion. Appeals from a district judge could only be allowed for procedural irregularity, or a plainly wrong exercise of the judge’s discretion. Fresh evidence should not be admitted unless there was a real need to do so on the application of the more liberal rules for the admission of fresh evidence recognised as necessary in Family proceedings.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President and Lord Justice Thorpe
Times 07-Dec-2001, Gazette 04-Jan-2002, [2002] 1 WLR 1441, [2002] 1 FCR 97, [2001] EWCA Civ 1507, [2002] 1 FLR 207, [2001] EWCA Civ 1791, [2002] Fam Law 17
Bailii, Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999, Civil Procedure Rules 52.11
England and Wales
Citing:
Reconsidered – Marsh v Marsh CA 1-Mar-1993
Appeals under the Family Proceedings Rules had to be read in conjunction with the CCR Order 37 r 6, and the judge hearing the appeal had discretion to substitute his own view for that of the court below. This is different from what applies on appeal . .
Cited by:
Cited – Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA 29-Jul-2005
The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness . .
Cited – B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets) CA 19-Mar-2008
The wife appealed an ancillary relief order for equal division on the basis that the judge had failed to allow for the fact that most of the assets had been brought to the marriage by her.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. All the assets at the . .
Cited – Lauder v Lauder FD 21-Mar-2007
W appealed against the variation of periodical payments order.
Held: The court will not generally expect W to apply inherited capital (as opposed to the income generated therefrom) to the meeting of her maintenance needs. . .
Cited – Eve v Spratt CA 16-Apr-2002
W sought leave to appeal against the refusal in an ancillary relief application to award her any maintenance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.167117
