Taylor v Taylor

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, new factual complaints or events arising after the county court’s order will ordinarily be treated as fresh evidence. They should be raised in the county court through an application to vary the order or seek further orders. They do not, without more, justify permission to appeal. Disagreement with findings based on witness credibility and accepted professional assessments did not provide a sufficient basis for permission.

Mrs Taylor renewed her application for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Kenny on 27 September 2001. The order required her to leave the matrimonial home and not return during its stated period. Permission had previously been refused on paper. At the renewed hearing she raised concerns about the children’s safety, the arrival of her brother-in-law and his children, the possibility of dividing the house, and alleged harassment. The central question was whether these matters justified permission to appeal or required further proceedings in the county court.

Lord Justice Thorpe confirmed the provisional refusal of permission.

1. The county court order rested on the judge’s clear finding that the father’s evidence was credible and the mother’s evidence was not. It also relied on recommendations and assessments by the court reporting officer, which the judge accepted as impartial and valid. The applicant’s disagreement with those evaluations did not justify permission.
2. The children’s safety concerns had already been addressed by the judge’s assessment that they would be safe in their father’s care. The brother-in-law’s arrival, the complaint about his alleged drug addiction, and the proposed division of the house were new matters or matters not raised before Judge Kenny.
3. The alleged harassment, supported by evidence of mobile telephone calls, was likewise fresh evidence. Recent events and fresh evidence could justify a further application in the county court, but did not justify permission to appeal in this court.
4. Mrs Taylor’s solicitors continued to act for her. If the matters raised in correspondence were not satisfactorily resolved, she should consider with them seeking variation or further orders in the county court. The renewed application was dismissed and the order was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused, confirming the provisional refusal of 18 October 2001: [2001] EWCA Civ 1814.
• Milton Keynes County Court: His Honour Judge Kenny made the order dated 27 September 2001 requiring Mrs Taylor to vacate the matrimonial home and not return during the stated period.