Heywood v Hey

Permission to appeal was refused. Under Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55, an application should not proceed where it raises no important point of law or practice and there is no other compelling reason. A completed sale to a purchaser who paid value cannot be undone to restore the former home; the parties’ remaining entitlement is to their shares of the proceeds. The court will not interfere with discretionary costs adjudications or a discretionary conclusion where no fault is shown.

Ms Heywood and Mr Hey were unmarried cohabitants who jointly bought a home and had two children. After their relationship ended, Mr Hey obtained an order from Judge Tetlow for the property’s sale and equal division of the proceeds. Applications to set aside that order, for permission to appeal and for a stay were refused. A Deputy District Judge later authorised execution of the sale contract. In separate proceedings under the Children Act 1989, section 15 in the schedule, Mr Recorder Dodds refused ancillary relief for the children. Gibbs J dismissed Ms Heywood’s appeals on 20 December 2000. By the Court of Appeal hearing, the sale had completed. The central issue was whether permission to appeal should be granted.

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting alone, dismissed the application.

1. In relation to the order for sale, an appeal had already been dismissed by Gibbs J. The application for permission was therefore subject to section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The court found no important point of law or practice and no other compelling reason to grant permission.
2. The property had been sold and the sale completed. It was then the home of a third-party family who had paid good money for it. The court could not restore the property to Ms Heywood. The remaining issue was for the parties to receive their respective shares of the sale proceeds.
3. Ms Heywood’s complaints about costs orders did not justify intervention. Those were discretionary adjudications, and the court stated that it could do nothing in relation to them.
4. Having read Mr Recorder Dodds’s judgment with care, the court found no fault in his discretionary conclusion refusing relief under the Children Act 1989. That application was likewise dismissed.

Order: Application dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1333, Lord Justice Thorpe dismissed Ms Heywood’s applications for permission to appeal against the orders of Gibbs J and Mr Recorder Dodds.
2. Gibbs J: On 20 December 2000, dismissed Ms Heywood’s appeals from the orders of Judge Tetlow and Deputy District Judge Smith.
3. Manchester County Court: Judge Tetlow ordered the sale of the jointly owned home and equal division of the proceeds on 29 February 2000. His refusal on 15 June 2000 to set aside the order, grant permission to appeal or stay it was followed by a Deputy District Judge’s order authorising execution of the sale contract on 24 July 2000. Mr Recorder Dodds subsequently refused ancillary relief for the children.