Michael James Augousti v Amrit Kaur Matharu
[2023] EWHC 1900 (Fam)
Philip John Mainwaring v Susan Claire Bailey
5 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2296 (Fam)
High Court
A husband appealed a divorce settlement. He argued the judge was biased, misunderstood a previous court case, and made an unfair decision. The High Court disagreed, saying the judge was fair and the settlement reasonable. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a financial remedy order made by HHJ Furness KC.
- •Total assets available for distribution were approximately £434,000.
- •The order awarded the Respondent £210,000 and the Appellant approximately £154,732 after costs.
- •The Appellant, nearly 60 and in poor health, sought a rehearing.
- •The Respondent, 53 years old, was awarded sufficient funds to purchase a home outright.
- •The appeal raised grounds of perceived bias, misunderstanding of the civil judgment, and unreasonable outcome.
- •A three-day hearing took place in the Family Court at Cardiff before HHJ Furness KC.
- •The parties were married for 13-14 years and had no children.
- •The Appellant was self-represented at first instance and inconsistently represented during the appeal.
Legal Principles
Test for granting permission to appeal (real prospect of success or compelling reason).
FPR rule 30.3(7)
Appellate court's approach to findings of fact (should not interfere unless plainly wrong).
Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360; Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; Volpi and another v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Overriding objective of dealing justly and proportionately.
FPR rule 1.1
Test for admitting fresh evidence (could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably influence the result, and is apparently credible).
Ladd v Marshall (1954) FLR Rep 422
Principles of sharing, needs, and compensation in financial remedy cases; fairness as the overarching principle.
s.25 and s.25A Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The grounds of appeal were not made out. The judge's decision was within the bounds of his discretion and was fair.
Ground 1 (perceived bias) withdrawn.
Appellant's informed decision.
Ground 2 (misunderstanding of civil judgment) dismissed as unfounded.
The judge correctly understood and applied the civil judgment; his findings were reasonable.
Ground 3 (unreasonable outcome) dismissed as unfounded.
The outcome was fair, considering all relevant factors under s.25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The judge's reasoning and application of the law were sound.
Grounds 2 and 3 certified as totally without merit.
The judge found these grounds to lack merit after hearing full argument.