Briggs v Briggs

In ancillary-relief enforcement proceedings, refusal to extend time for payment of a lump sum is discretionary. The Court of Appeal will interfere only where the decision was plainly wrong, particularly when the judge heard the evidence and an earlier appeal concerning the original order. Allegations of misrepresentation or material non-disclosure do not justify reopening the merits through a later time-extension or possession appeal where no application has been made to set aside the original order. A consequential possession order cannot be challenged independently where there is no arguable basis to challenge the underlying decision.

Following marital breakdown, an ancillary relief order required the husband to pay £33,500 by a specified date or transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home and insurance policies to his former wife. A circuit judge later refused to extend time for payment after considering further allegations about the wife’s financial conduct. A possession order followed, and the husband’s appeal against it was dismissed. He applied for permission to appeal both decisions, relying on alleged misrepresentation, non-disclosure and the interests of a child. The central issues were whether refusal to extend time was a plainly wrong exercise of discretion and whether the possession order could be challenged separately.

Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed.

1. The refusal to extend time was discretionary. Although the circuit judge had power to extend time, he was not obliged to do so. The Court of Appeal would not interfere unless satisfied that the decision was plainly wrong. The hurdle was especially high because the judge had heard the earlier appeal and the evidence, and was better placed to assess the real merits.
2. Allegations that the original ancillary-relief order had been obtained through misrepresentation or material non-disclosure could not be used to reopen the merits in these applications. No application had been made to set aside the original order on that basis, although the husband had legal advice when such an application could have been considered. The allegations had already been raised before the earlier courts, and the later material provided no basis for intervention at that stage.
3. The current financial position did not show a sufficiently clear balance of advantage in favour of the wife to justify reconsideration. The house appeared to have little or no equity, since the stated mortgage exceeded its valuation. The existing order therefore remained operative.
4. The possession order was consequential on the refusal to extend time. Since there was no basis for permission to appeal the underlying order, there was no independent basis to challenge possession. The transcript was to be supplied to the applicant at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1998, Lady Justice Hale dismissed applications for permission to appeal against the refusal to extend time for payment of the lump sum and the consequential possession order.
• Blackburn County Court: The circuit judge refused to extend time for payment on 20 September 2001. The district judge had ordered possession of the former matrimonial home, and the circuit judge dismissed the husband’s appeal against that order on 21 November 2001.