Myerson v Myerson (No 2): CA 1 Apr 2009

The couple had compromised a very substantial ancillary relief claim on divorce, but the husband now said that the value of the shareholdings from which payment was to be made had collapsed.
Held: His appeal was dismissed. The principles for allowing an appeal out of time for the possibility of setting aside an order were now well established, and the husband had a stiff hill to climb. The order was not imposed by the court but negotiated between the parties, the order sought resulted in part from unwise speculation by the husband, and the market might yet alter. Not all the sums had yet been paid, and he might also have scope to apply to vary the order.


Lord Justice Thorpe, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Sullivan


[2009] EWCA Civ 282, Times 06-Apr-2009, [2009] Fam Law 564, [2009] 2 FCR 1, [2010] 1 WLR 114, [2009] 2 FLR 147




England and Wales


CitedBarder v Calouri HL 1987
In divorce proceedings, the husband transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the wife who had been awarded care and control of the two children of the family. The order was made on 20th February 1985 and on 25th March an appalling tragedy . .
CitedWells v Wells CA 20-Mar-2002
The court considered an application for ancillary relief. The assets were substantial, but before the judge was to deliver his judgment he accepted evidence from the husand that the sale of his business had fallen through and H’s income . .
CitedWestbury v Sampson CA 23-Mar-2001
The claimant was advised to accept a consent order that his wife should pay him a capital sum in the divorce, but by instalments. The wife later successfully applied to have the sum reduced. He sought to claim against his former solicitors for not . .
CitedCornick v Cornick (No 2) FD 1995
The court considered an application to vary an ancillary relief award and gave a wife more than the sum set out in the budget in circumstances where she had received a capital sum that, with hindsight, was far too low.
Hale J said: ‘Where such . .

Cited by:

CitedBirch 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.


Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.328887