Abdalla v Abdalla

An application for permission to appeal may be adjourned for hearing on notice where the factual and legal issues require fuller consideration than is practicable at the permission stage. The court may consider the need for professional assistance where an applicant is unrepresented and cannot adequately present the proposed appeal. Serious concerns about the conduct of a participant or legal representative may provide an additional reason for closer scrutiny, even where their ultimate relevance remains uncertain. Such case-management decisions do not determine the merits. The court may give practical directions, including service on persons whose interests may be affected, provision of a transcript at public expense and consideration of pro bono assistance.

The husband applied for permission to appeal against an order made by Mr Richard Anelay QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, in a Chancery action transferred to the Family Division. The order required the husband’s brother, Karim, to deliver title documents for three properties so that the freehold titles could be registered in the wife’s name. The underlying claims for ancillary relief were then to be dismissed on a clean-break basis.

The judge had rejected the husband’s case that the wife had subjected him to undue pressure, causing him to procure the transfers. Lord Justice Ward considered that the factual and legal complexity, the husband’s lack of representation and concerns about the wife’s solicitor’s conduct required fuller consideration. The central procedural issue was whether the permission application should be adjourned and heard on notice.

1. Application adjourned. Lord Justice Ward adjourned the husband’s application for permission to appeal so that it could be heard on notice to the wife and to Karim, who had an interest in the property documents and had not participated in the application.
2. The underlying order arose from a long and unusual family-property dispute. The properties had been treated as acquired from money generated by Karim or by Karim and the husband, apart from possible contributions of child benefit. The equitable interest appeared, subject to fuller study of the judgment, to have been vested in Karim or in Karim and the husband, while legal title ultimately stood in Karim’s name.
3. Karim had executed transfers in favour of the wife. The central issue was whether the husband, allegedly subject to pressure from the wife concerning contact with the children, had placed undue pressure on Karim to execute those transfers. The judge had found that the necessary undue pressure had not been established. Although the wife’s section 37 claim for avoidance of disposition had been dismissed, the practical effect of the order was that she would obtain the properties and the parties’ ancillary-relief claims would end with a clean break.
4. Ward LJ considered that the complexity of the facts and the difficulties concerning undue influence and undue pressure required more attention than could be given on an immediate permission application. He also treated the admitted affair between the wife and her solicitor, together with criticism of the solicitor’s conduct of the litigation, as an additional reason for careful consideration, while observing that its relevance to the events in issue was uncertain.
5. The husband was urged to obtain professional advice because he could not adequately present an appeal without substantial assistance. The court directed that the transcript be prepared at public expense so that the parties and advisers could consider it, and invited consideration of assistance from the Bar pro bono unit. There was no order as to costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The husband applied for permission to appeal. The application was adjourned to be heard on notice to the wife and Karim.
• High Court (Family Division) — Mr Richard Anelay QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, ordered Karim to deliver the property title documents for registration in the wife’s name, after which the ancillary-relief claims were to be dismissed on a clean-break basis.