Piglowska v. Piglowski

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and restored the order of the judge below. The court emphasised that orders under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the statutory factors in section 25(1) and (2) require a value judgment by the trial judge, and appellate courts should not lightly substitute their own evaluation unless the decision is plainly wrong. The court held that the District Judge and the High Court judge had properly weighed the wife's need to remain in the matrimonial home, her greater contributions, and the rationality of the husband’s intention to return to England. The Court of Appeal erred in re-weighing the evidence and in relying on unsupported assumptions about the local property market. The court also stressed the relevance of proportionality in costs and that the possibility of postponement of the Legal Aid Board's charge is a proper factor to consider but is not a reason to distort the statutory balancing exercise.

This appeal concerned ancillary relief following divorce and the division of modest matrimonial assets. The parties were formerly married; the wife remained in the former matrimonial home in Ladywell with two adult sons and ran a dressmaking business there. The assets totalled about £127,400, while legal costs had greatly exceeded that figure.

The main relief sought was transfer of property under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The principal issues were (i) the proper exercise of the court's discretion under section 24 having regard to the section 25(1) and (2) factors, notably the respective needs and contributions of the parties, (ii) whether the District Judge and the High Court judge had failed to have proper regard to the husband’s need to purchase accommodation in England, and (iii) whether fresh evidence from an estate agent should have been admitted on appeal.

• Procedural history: a District Judge made a substantial award in favour of the wife to enable her to remain in the matrimonial home (7 October 1996); the husband appealed to the High Court which dismissed the appeal (25 November 1996); an initial application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by Thorpe L.J. (31 January 1997) but leave was later granted on renewed ex parte application (12 March 1997); the Court of Appeal allowed the husband’s appeal (3 November 1997) and reallocated assets in his favour; the House of Lords then heard the matter and allowed the appeal, restoring the earlier order.
• Court’s reasoning: the House of Lords reiterated that the statutory list in section 25 does not establish a hierarchy and that weighing of competing needs and contributions involves value judgments on which reasonable minds may differ. The appellate court must show caution before overturning concurrent findings. The Court of Appeal was wrong to rely on unadmitted estate agent evidence and to take judicial notice of particular property price ranges without evidence. The House of Lords further warned about disproportionate litigation costs in small asset cases and observed that the existence or postponement of the Legal Aid Board’s charge is a relevant factor but does not justify distorting the exercise under section 25.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords held that the District Judge and the High Court judge had acted within the generous ambit of reasonable decision-making required by section 24 read with section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; the Court of Appeal had wrongly substituted its own view for the trial judge's discretionary evaluation, and had relied upon unsupported assumptions about the property market and the admission of fresh evidence. The House of Lords restored the judge's order.

District Judge Kenworthy-Browne (Principal Registry of the Family Division) reserved judgment 7 October 1996; appeal to the High Court (Her Honour Judge Pearlman) dismissed 25 November 1996; application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused on the papers by Thorpe L.J. 31 January 1997; leave granted on renewed ex parte application before Hirst and Ward L.JJ. 12 March 1997; Court of Appeal (Simon Brown L.J. and Ward L.J.) allowed the appeal 3 November 1997; House of Lords allowed the appeal [1999] UKHL 27 (24 June 1999).