Champ v Champ

A further appeal after an appeal has already been heard in the court of trial requires an important point of law or practice or another compelling reason under section 55. The threshold is high and general allegations of injustice do not suffice. In ancillary-relief proceedings, an appellate judge may exercise an independent discretion on the facts found below and give accepted misconduct greater weight without making further findings.

Ancillary-relief proceedings concerned the parties’ jointly owned villa in Alicante. The District Judge ordered the wife to transfer her half-share to the husband. On the wife’s appeal, the Circuit Judge ordered a sale and awarded her 75% of the proceeds, reflecting the husband’s misconduct. The husband sought permission for a further appeal, alleging that the Circuit Judge had exceeded the factual findings and reached an unfair result. The central issue was whether those complaints satisfied the section 55 threshold.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

1. Applicable threshold. Section 55 is intended, so far as possible, to confine the right of appeal to the court of trial. After an appeal has already been heard there, permission for a further appeal requires an important point of law or practice or some other compelling reason.
2. Appellate discretion. The Circuit Judge was required to exercise an independent discretion on the facts found by the District Judge. She had not made additional findings against the husband. Rather, she had given greater weight to misconduct which the District Judge had accepted. That was within the broad discretion available in ancillary-relief proceedings.
3. Complaints about the findings. The criticisms concerning the value of Grey & Co and the nature of the wife’s accommodation did not establish error. The District Judge’s finding concerning the forged signature was unspecific, but plainly rejected the husband’s case and accepted the wife’s case. The Circuit Judge was therefore entitled to describe the finding as she did.
4. Alleged injustice. The husband’s complaint that the resulting division was unfair did not amount to a compelling reason. A different view of the discretionary weighting, without a point of law or principle, could not justify a further appeal.

Order: application dismissed.

1. Blackburn County Court: District Judge Talbot determined the ancillary-relief proceedings on 13 December 2000 and ordered the wife to transfer her half-share in the Alicante villa to the husband.
2. Blackburn County Court, appellate hearing: On 27 April 2001, Her Honour Judge Kushner QC varied the order, directing a sale and awarding the wife 75% of the proceeds.
3. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission was refused on paper on 13 June 2001. The renewed oral application was dismissed on 18 July 2001.