Ayech v Ayech

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where there is an important point of principle or another compelling reason. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a financial order unless the lower court adopted a wrong approach in principle. A challenge to the exercise of discretion concerning financial arrangements, including the disposition of a home required for a spouse and child, does not justify permission merely because the applicant disputes the outcome.

The applicant sought permission for a second appeal against the dismissal by Mr Justice Charles of an appeal from a district judge in family proceedings. The dispute concerned financial arrangements between the parties, particularly the disposition of a house in which the applicant accepted that he had a substantial interest but which was required as a home for the wife and child. The High Court had applied the approach confirmed in Cordle v Cordle [2002] 1 FLR 207. The issue was whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or another compelling reason.

1. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. The relevant financial arrangements, including the disposition of the house, involved an evaluative decision in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal would interfere with the district judge’s decision only if the judge had adopted a wrong approach in principle.
3. The applicant faced the additional threshold applicable to a second appeal. Permission required an important point of principle or another compelling reason for the appeal to proceed.
4. Having heard the applicant and considered the papers, grounds of appeal and skeleton argument, Lord Justice Carnwath found no basis for interfering with the High Court’s decision and no point of general importance or other compelling reason.
5. Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission for a second appeal was refused.
2. High Court of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division: Mr Justice Charles dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the district judge’s order.
3. District judge: Made the original order concerning the parties’ financial arrangements, including the house.