Dracup v Dracup

An application for permission to appeal may be adjourned where an unrepresented applicant’s complaint is unclear and a short further hearing with pro bono representation may enable it to be properly presented. The adjournment may be granted as a final opportunity, subject to a fixed time estimate and the expectation that further adjournments will not readily be granted. Practical difficulties in implementing a property order, including concerns raised by mortgagees, may be dealt with under an express liberty to apply concerning implementation and timing.

The husband applied for permission to appeal orders made by Brentford County Court concerning two jointly owned and mortgaged properties. A Deputy District Judge had ordered their sale and division of the proceeds. On appeal, the Circuit Judge varied that arrangement, directing that the wife retain Woodbine Villas and the husband retain Fern Lane, with reciprocal transfers and releases from mortgage liability. The husband appeared without representation and said that mortgagee difficulties affected implementation. The Court of Appeal considered whether the permission application should proceed or be adjourned to enable pro bono representation.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned for hearing before Lord Justice Thorpe in September. The court made no determination on the merits of the proposed appeal.
2. The applicant appeared in person, had prepared lengthy and difficult-to-understand written submissions, and the court had difficulty identifying his central complaint. The court nevertheless gave him one final opportunity to obtain representation through the Bar Pro Bono Unit. The next hearing was to retain a 20-minute time estimate, and no further adjournment would be lightly granted.
3. The underlying order was regarded, on its face, as a sensible practical solution. It allocated the more valuable property to the wife and the less valuable property to the husband, while providing for reciprocal transfers and release from liability under the other party’s mortgage.
4. The court noted that no stay application had been made, despite the requirement that the reciprocal transfers be completed within 14 days. It also noted that the order expressly permitted either party to apply to the court on implementation and timing. If difficulties with the mortgagees existed, that liberty to apply was the appropriate procedural remedy.
5. The court directed that a copy of the transcript be supplied to the applicant at public expense so that any representative appearing at the adjourned hearing would understand the basis on which the application had been listed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The husband’s application for permission to appeal was adjourned to permit him to seek pro bono representation.
• Brentford County Court: A Deputy District Judge ordered sale of the available properties and division of the anticipated proceeds.
• Brentford County Court on appeal: His Honour Judge Oppenheimer varied the order so that the wife retained Woodbine Villas and the husband retained Fern Lane, subject to reciprocal transfers and mortgage arrangements.