Tuckett v Tuckett

A second appeal requires permission. The applicant must show an important point of law or practice, or another good reason for the appeal to proceed. The court’s primary concern in ancillary relief proceedings is the parties’ realisable assets. A valuation based on available evidence, including a discount for a minority shareholding that cannot realistically be realised, will not be disturbed without error. Appropriate case-management directions may confine an appeal to identified grounds. Where the lower courts have considered the relevant matters, ill health and fair-hearing arguments do not displace the permission threshold.

The husband sought permission to appeal against orders made in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings. District Judge Gamba had ordered the sale of the former matrimonial home and valued the wife’s minority shareholding in a dry-cleaning company at £54,666. Judge Coates dismissed the husband’s appeal on 13 November 2006.

The husband also challenged case-management directions, sought extensions of time and applied to adduce further evidence concerning valuations, his health and business income. The central issue was whether any proposed appeal raised an important point of law or practice, or otherwise disclosed a good reason for a second appeal to proceed.

Decision

Lord Justice Scott Baker refused all the applications.

1. The proposed challenge to the District Judge’s decision was, in substance, a second appeal from Judge Coates’s dismissal of the husband’s appeal. Permission required an important point of law or practice, or some other good reason for the appeal to go forward. That criterion was not met.
2. In ancillary relief proceedings, the court’s primary interest is in realisable assets. The District Judge was entitled to rely on the available valuation evidence and to conclude that the wife’s minority shareholding had no realistic means of realisation beyond the basis adopted. Neither the valuation nor the discount disclosed an error. The District Judge was also entitled to proceed on the evidence that the land in which the wife had a beneficial interest had no foreseeable development prospect.
3. The lower courts had been aware of the husband’s bipolar affective disorder and his complaints about the opportunity to provide further evidence. His extensive engagement with the proceedings did not establish a basis for extending time or granting permission to appeal.
4. The direction limiting the forthcoming appeal to grounds contained in the husband’s skeleton argument was a sound case-management decision, particularly given the scale and history of the litigation. The fair-hearing and human-rights arguments were rejected. The applications for permission to appeal, extensions of time and permission to adduce fresh evidence were refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 113, permission to appeal, extensions of time and permission to adduce fresh evidence were refused.
2. Brighton County Court: Judge Coates dismissed the husband’s appeal against District Judge Gamba’s ancillary relief order on 13 November 2006.
3. Brighton County Court: District Judge Gamba made the ancillary relief order on 10 April 2006.