Tait v Tait

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene. A case which merely applies established principles to particular facts will not ordinarily satisfy that threshold. This restraint is especially important in ancillary relief proceedings, where the decision is discretionary and the trial judge has heard evidence. The Court of Appeal should be very cautious before interfering with such a decision or permitting successive appeals in pursuit of a supposedly perfect result.

The husband applied for permission to bring a second appeal in ancillary relief proceedings arising from his divorce. The District Judge ordered the former matrimonial home to be sold, with the net equity divided 70 per cent to the husband and 30 per cent to the wife. His Honour Judge Hall upheld that decision, while allowing the husband a short opportunity to raise the wife’s share and avoid an immediate sale.

The husband challenged the valuation, the division of equity, the treatment of debts and the proposed sale. The central question was whether the proposed appeal satisfied the statutory test for a second appeal.

1. Application refused. The applications for permission to appeal, for a stay of execution and to rely on further evidence were refused.
2. Section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 permits a second appeal only where the Court of Appeal considers that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or that there is some other compelling reason for it to be heard.
3. The proposed challenge concerned the application of established principles to the particular facts and the exercise of a discretionary jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act. It therefore did not satisfy the statutory threshold.
4. The Court of Appeal should be especially cautious about interfering with ancillary relief decisions after the matter has been considered by two judges, particularly where the trial court has heard evidence. The approach in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360 supported that restraint.
5. The husband’s arguments concerning his earlier ownership of the property, mortgage payments, the length of the marriage, the debts, valuation, housing and contact with the child were relevant to the discretionary decision, but disclosed no qualifying point for a second appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission for a second appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Hall.
• Leicester County Court: dismissed the husband’s appeal against the District Judge’s ancillary relief order and allowed three months to raise the wife’s share of the equity.
• District Judge, Chesterfield County Court: ordered sale of the former matrimonial home and division of the net equity, 70 per cent to the husband and 30 per cent to the wife.