Tebbutt 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 an intervenor comes in making a claim for the property, then it is within the jurisdiction of the Judge to decide on the validity of the intervenor’s claim. The Judge ought to decide what are the rights and interest of all the parties, not only of the intervenor, but of the husband and wife respectively in the property. He can only make an order for transfer to the wife, of property which is the husband’s property. He cannot make an order for the transfer to the wife of someone else’s interest.
It is to be emphasised, however, that the task of the judge determining a dispute as to ownership between a spouse and a third party is, of course, completely different in nature from the familiar discretionary exercise between spouses. A dispute with a third party must be approached on exactly the same legal basis as if it were being determined in the Chancery Division.’


Brightman J, Lord Denning MR


[1981] 2 All ER 238


Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24

Cited by:

CitedBaker 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408501