Key Facts
- •Appeal against a Family Court order awarding a £58,000 lump sum to the wife in divorce proceedings.
- •Limited marital assets; husband's property (14 Edwin Avenue) is non-matrimonial.
- •Marriage lasted six years (2003-2009), but the wife had a longer commitment due to raising a child.
- •Wife has significant health issues and is unemployed; husband is employed but nearing retirement.
- •Wife's initial appeal sought a larger sum (£300,000) from the sale of the husband's property.
- •Husband's lack of full financial disclosure regarding mortgage capacity.
Legal Principles
Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 30.3
Appeals are limited to reviewing the lower court's decision for errors or injustice.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 30.12
Financial remedies must consider all circumstances under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, prioritizing the child's welfare, and factors such as income, needs, standard of living, age, disability, contributions, and conduct.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25
Financial remedy cases must be gender-neutral and aim for fairness, considering sharing of matrimonial property, compensation for disadvantage, and needs balanced against ability to pay.
White v White [2000] UKHL 54 and Miller/McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24
Non-matrimonial property can be invaded to meet needs, but all factors must be considered.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Recorder's order was within his discretion, considering the limited assets, non-matrimonial nature of the husband's property, and the unrealistic proposals made by the wife.