Eve v Spratt

Permission for a second-tier appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. In ancillary-relief appeals, interference requires procedural irregularity, reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong conclusion. Fresh evidence is not admitted merely to enable a rehearing or to investigate matters that could have been raised below. Sympathy for a litigant or disagreement with the result does not itself justify a further appeal.

A district judge dismissed the wife’s ancillary-relief claims. On appeal, Her Honour Judge Carr held that the district judge had not acted irregularly or reached a plainly wrong conclusion. She applied the Court of Appeal’s intervening decision in Cordle v Cordle, which had reconsidered Marsh v Marsh and restricted appeals from district judges.

The wife, acting in person, sought permission for a second-tier appeal, alleging procedural unfairness, defective financial disclosure, and failure to apply White v White.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal raised no important point of principle or practice and disclosed no other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. The circuit judge was correct to apply Cordle v Cordle. An appeal from a district judge in ancillary relief should succeed only for procedural irregularity, reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong conclusion. The appellate judge must not substitute a different exercise of discretion.
3. Fresh evidence should not be admitted simply to permit a rehearing or to investigate matters which could properly have been raised before the district judge. CPR 52(11) supported that approach.
4. Marsh v Marsh, which permitted a more liberal reconsideration, including further evidence and oral evidence, had been disapproved in Cordle v Cordle. The Cordle approach was binding procedural guidance.
5. The court found no basis for concluding that the wife had been denied a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor was there substance in the argument that White v White had not been applied.
6. The circuit judge’s comments that she might have awarded money under the former approach were unhelpful, but did not invalidate her decision.

Order: application refused. No order as to costs.

• Sheffield County Court: District Judge Hill dismissed the wife’s ancillary-relief claims.
• Sheffield County Court on appeal: Her Honour Judge Carr upheld the result, applying Cordle v Cordle.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission for a second-tier appeal was refused. No order as to costs.