Stanton v Stanton

In ancillary relief proceedings, permission is not required for an appeal from a District Judge to a Circuit Judge. Where permission is wrongly treated as necessary and the application is refused, the litigant has not received the substantive appeal. The refusal cannot stand. The appropriate remedy is to set aside the orders made on that mistaken basis and direct a fresh hearing of the appeal, in the circumstances before another judge. The appellate court may also give directions for the filing of further evidence and reserve consequential costs to the proceedings below.

Mr Stanton appealed to the Court of Appeal after His Honour Judge Brandt, sitting in the Colchester County Court on 31 July 2001, had refused what was treated as an application for permission to appeal from an order of District Judge Molle dated 19 June 2001. The Court of Appeal identified that Mr Stanton had not sought permission and did not require it in the ancillary relief proceedings. The central issue was the appropriate consequence of having wrongly denied him a hearing of his substantive appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by consent.

1. Lord Justice Thorpe identified the procedural error: following the Woolf Reforms, permission was required for an appeal from a District Judge to a Circuit Judge in civil proceedings, but not otherwise in ancillary relief proceedings. Mr Stanton had therefore been wrongly required to obtain permission.
2. Because the substantive appeal had never been heard, the refusal of permission and the orders founded upon it could not stand. The orders of His Honour Judge Brandt were set aside, and Mr Stanton's appeal from the District Judge was directed to be listed before another County Court judge as soon as practicable.
3. The application to adduce fresh evidence was not required for disposal of the Court of Appeal proceedings. Directions were nevertheless given for Mr Stanton's evidence to be filed within four weeks, Mrs Stanton's evidence in response within 14 days thereafter, and any reply within a further seven days.
4. There was no order as to appeal costs incurred before 20 March 2002. Subsequent appeal costs, including the respondent's notice, were to be costs in the proceedings below, dependent on the outcome of the County Court appeal. The respondent's costs were subject to public funding assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed by consent. The orders of His Honour Judge Brandt were set aside and the appeal from the District Judge was directed to be heard by another County Court judge.
• Colchester County Court: His Honour Judge Brandt had refused what he understood to be an application for permission to appeal from District Judge Molle's order, although permission was not required.