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 to the Court of Appeal. In particular the judge may choose to hear fresh evidence: ‘No party shall be entitled as of right to adduce further evidence or oral evidence but the judge may in his discretion admit such further or oral evidence as he thinks relevant and just upon such terms as he thinks fit.’


Sir Stephen Brown P


Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993, Times 16-Feb-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 744


Family Proceedings Rules 1991 8.1(2) 8.1(3) 4.23, County Court Rules 1981 Order 37 Rule 6, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973


England and Wales

Cited by:

ReconsideredCordle v Cordle CA 15-Nov-2001
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 . .
CitedPiglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Family

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83425