Cordle v Cordle

In ancillary relief appeals, a Circuit Judge should review the District Judge’s decision rather than rehear the case. Intervention is justified for procedural irregularity, reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong conclusion. Fresh evidence should be admitted sparingly under family-law principles.

Financial provision is governed by the section 25 criteria and fairness, not a presumption of equal outcome. The court should normally address the housing needs of the primary carer and children, then the other parent’s housing and ability to work, before assessing remaining capital. Equality is a safeguard against discrimination.

Following a 20-year marriage, the District Judge ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, allocating £125,000 to the wife and £55,000 to the husband, with other assets divided equally and provision made for the children’s benefit.

The Circuit Judge allowed the wife’s appeal, awarded the husband £20,000 from the sale proceeds, transferred other assets to him, and dismissed his cross-appeal. The husband appealed. The Court of Appeal considered errors in the capital calculation, the treatment of child-support responsibilities, the husband’s entitlement to share in any surplus, and whether the rehearing practice established in Marsh v Marsh should continue.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Thorpe granted permission, allowed the husband’s appeal and restored the District Judge’s order. The President agreed. The Circuit Judge’s order was set aside, and there was no order for costs.
2. Errors in the Circuit Judge’s approach. The Circuit Judge wrongly removed the husband’s entitlement to share in any sale surplus, misunderstood the effect of the District Judge’s order, double counted an £18,000 insurance receipt, and treated the wife as bearing the relevant child-support burden. The Child Support Acts placed assessment and enforcement of the husband’s maintenance liability within the statutory administrative scheme, outside the court’s jurisdiction in the ancillary relief proceedings.
3. Appellate practice. The Court departed from the rehearing approach described in Marsh v Marsh [1993] 1 WLR 744. An appeal from a District Judge to a Circuit Judge in ancillary relief proceedings should be allowed only for procedural irregularity, reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong conclusion. Under Civil Procedure Act 1997, Access to Justice Act 1999 and Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 52.11, such appeals should ordinarily be reviews. Fresh evidence should be admitted only under the more liberal family-law principles and then sparingly.
4. Financial provision. White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 did not impose a rule requiring equal outcomes. Equality is a cross-check against discrimination. The court must apply the section 25(2) criteria to all the circumstances, giving first consideration to the children’s welfare and ordinarily addressing the housing needs of the primary carer and children, the other parent’s rehousing needs, and the parties’ ability to work before determining any fair allocation of remaining capital. Pension policies may be included at cash equivalent transfer value without making immediate sale proceeds subject to equal division.
5. Any sums paid under the Circuit Judge’s order could be taken into account when the matrimonial home was sold.

1. Court of Appeal allowed the husband’s appeal, set aside the Circuit Judge’s order and restored the District Judge’s order: [2001] EWCA Civ 1791.
2. Sheffield County Court, Circuit Judge allowed the wife’s appeal, dismissed the husband’s cross-appeal and varied the ancillary relief order.
3. Sheffield County Court, District Judge ordered sale of the matrimonial home, allocated the anticipated proceeds between the parties, directed equal division of specified assets, made pension nomination provision for the children and imposed a clean break.