Key Facts
- •Appeal against Recorder Willetts' order in financial remedy proceedings awarding the wife (£750k lump sum + costs).
- •Intervenor (church) is the appellant; husband (H) founded the church and received loans.
- •Loans were found to be 'soft loans' with no expectation of repayment (HHJ Mitchell).
- •Church sought a charging order over the former matrimonial home (Daisy Close).
- •Wife (W) sought £750k and costs; husband offered proceeds of sale of second property (Goldhawk House).
- •Assets: Daisy Close (£1.176m), Goldhawk House (£372k net), W's debts (£110k).
- •W lived in council housing; H lived in Daisy Close, minimal involvement with children, unpaid maintenance.
- •Church argued res judicata/estoppel, improper needs assessment, and failure to balance creditor/W's needs.
- •Recorder held himself bound by HHJ Mitchell's decision, deemed church's application 'opportunistic'.
Legal Principles
Res judicata/estoppel: Whether the recorder was bound by HHJ Mitchell's findings on the loans.
Various case law cited, including discussion of Harman v Glencross and Austin-Fell v Austin-Fell.
Assessment of wife's needs: Whether the recorder properly assessed the wife's needs in financial remedy proceedings.
Matrimonial Causes Act and Charging Orders Act 1979.
Balancing exercise: Balancing the interests of the judgment creditor and the needs of the wife and children.
Harman v Glencross [1986] 1 All ER 545 and Austin-Fell v Austin-Fell [1992] All ER 455.
Charging Orders Act 1979, Section 1(5): Court considers all circumstances, debtor's personal circumstances, and prejudice to other creditors.
Charging Orders Act 1979.
Appeal court's approach to findings of fact: Appeal court should not interfere unless the trial judge was plainly wrong.
Volpi v Volpi [2022] 4 WLR 48.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed (except for costs).
Recorder's decision was not plainly wrong; he considered all circumstances and balanced competing interests. While the calculation of W's needs could have been clearer, it wasn't excessively high given H's undisclosed funds and lack of support for W and children. The church's arguments regarding res judicata were deemed sterile, as the recorder considered the facts before him.
Costs order amended.
The recorder double-counted costs; W undertook not to enforce the duplicated costs order.