Williams-Wynne v Williams-Wynne & Anor

In an unusual ancillary-relief case involving an inherited family estate, a judge may provide a spouse with capital and secure income without requiring existing capital to be amortised where the overall circumstances make amortisation inappropriate. Relevant circumstances include loss of occupation and amenity, restricted liquidity, and the other spouse’s continuing benefit from the estate. The level of annual income remains a discretionary assessment based on the parties’ resources and lifestyle. Permission to appeal on costs alone may be granted where a substantial costs order is inadequately explained and appears to exceed the receiving party’s total costs.

The husband sought permission to appeal Bennett J’s judgment and order of 28 March 2006 following cross-applications for ancillary relief after a long marriage. The substantive complaints concerned the failure to amortise the wife’s capital, the effect of asset sales on the husband’s income, and the award of a secure income of £60,000 per year for life. Bennett J refused permission. Scott-Baker LJ refused the renewed application on 14 June 2006. The husband renewed the application orally before the Court of Appeal, which also considered whether permission should be granted on the separate costs issue.

Application granted in part. Permission to appeal was refused on the substantive ancillary-relief issues but granted on the costs issue alone.

1. Ancillary relief and amortisation. Lord Justice Thorpe held that Bennett J was entitled to conclude that amortisation of the wife’s capital was inappropriate. The case involved an inherited family estate, finite resources and restricted liquidity. The wife’s claim was advanced on a needs basis and recognised the financial, amenity and emotional loss involved in giving up occupation of the estate. The husband and the family trusts retained substantial benefits from preserving the estate and the husband’s continuing occupation. No compelling authority required amortisation in those circumstances.
2. Income provision. The award of £60,000 a year was a realistic assessment within the trial judge’s discretion. Lord Justice Wall agreed that the assessment was for the judge in the overall circumstances, including the continuing and unquantifiable value of the husband’s occupation of the family estate. The substantive challenge had no real prospect of success.
3. Costs. The Court of Appeal considered that the costs order of £125,000 was not intelligible from Bennett J’s reasons. The judgment had already catered for £300,000 of the wife’s costs, while the additional costs appeared to justify approximately £50,000 rather than the further £75,000 ordered. As a matter of principle, the husband’s liability could not be placed above the wife’s total costs without proper justification. Permission was therefore granted on costs alone.
4. The court encouraged the parties to compromise the potential costs appeal and referred to the Court of Appeal’s supervised alternative-dispute-resolution scheme as an available means of avoiding further expense and publicity.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2006] EWCA Civ 1254, the renewed oral application was refused on the substantive issues but granted on the costs issue alone.
2. Scott-Baker LJ: Refused the renewed permission application on 14 June 2006, considering that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
3. Bennett J, Birmingham District Registry: Gave judgment and made the relevant order on 28 March 2006. Permission to appeal was refused at first instance.