Channon v Channon

When a party seeks permission to reopen concluded matrimonial proceedings because the court was allegedly misled, there must be an evidential basis for a judicial investigation and evidence that any misunderstanding materially affected the order. A later finding that solicitors were negligent does not contradict an earlier conclusion that counsel was not shown to have misled the court. The allegations, evidence and judicial tasks may be different. Finality in litigation is an important consideration. A stale and hopeless application should be refused, and the Court of Appeal will not intervene merely because related proceedings produced different findings.

Mr Channon sought permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Meston QC in the Bristol County Court on 16 March 2000. That order refused permission to proceed with an application to set aside ancillary relief orders made in December 1992 and January 1994. The proposed application alleged that counsel, the former wife and the solicitors had misled the court, and that the court had made an order knowing it to be wrong.

Mr Channon argued that the refusal was contradicted by findings in separate negligence proceedings against his former solicitors. The central issue was whether the two sets of findings were inconsistent.

Application refused. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the application for permission to appeal was stale and hopeless. The Court of Appeal had no proper role in reopening this long-running litigation.

1. The application to set aside the earlier orders required an evidential basis justifying judicial investigation of the allegations. The lower court had found no attempt to mislead, no evidence that the court had been misled, and no evidence of a misunderstanding with a material consequence for the order.
2. The November negligence proceedings involved a different judicial task. They concerned whether the solicitors had been negligent in conducting the ancillary relief proceedings. The March application concerned whether there was evidence warranting an investigation into alleged misleading by counsel and others. A firm conclusion that the attack on counsel’s competence and integrity failed could therefore coexist with a finding that the attack on the solicitors’ competence succeeded.
3. Finality in litigation was a material principle. The application had been issued over a year before the hearing and formed part of an excessively prolonged dispute. The court endorsed the need to bring the litigation to an end.
4. The court expressed sympathy for Mr Channon’s distress and noted the lower court’s findings about the effect of the matrimonial litigation on his life. Those observations did not alter the legal conclusion or create a further appellate role.

Permission to appeal was refused. A copy of the judgment was to be supplied to Mr Channon at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 27 April 2001, Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal, as reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 856.
• Bristol County Court: On 16 March 2000, His Honour Judge Meston QC refused permission to proceed with an application to set aside earlier ancillary relief orders.