B v B

The Court of Appeal may correct its order under the slip rule so that it accurately records the court’s judgments and the disposition of any cross-appeal or application for permission.

Where financial relief is expressed by reference to a proportion of an asset’s value, the order should not impose an absolute buy-out right or a precise figure unsupported by a current and sufficiently reliable valuation. Any necessary valuation may be directed to minimise later expense and dispute. Costs remain discretionary, taking account of success, offers and the extent to which unfounded issues generated costs.

This was an appeal in financial-relief proceedings between a wife and husband. The Court of Appeal had handed down its substantive judgments on 19 March 2008 and then received written submissions on consequential matters.

The additional judgment addressed corrections to the order, implementation and valuation of the carwash premises, liberty to apply, costs incurred in the lower courts and on appeal, and the husband’s application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

1. Form of order. The order was amended under the slip rule to record accurately that the husband’s cross-appeal had been dismissed, permission to appeal on an additional valuation ground had been refused, and the membership of the court had been misstated.
2. Buy-out and valuation. The court declined to give either party an absolute right to buy the other out of the carwash premises at £400,000, at another fixed figure or at half value. The earlier judgments proceeded by reference to a proportion of value rather than a precise valuation. The valuation relied on was too old and might be volatile, and the future balance of advantage or disadvantage could not reliably be predicted. The parties remained free to agree a future transfer.
3. If valuation became necessary to implement the order or a future agreement, it was to be made before costs of sale and tax by a single jointly appointed valuer. If the parties could not agree on the appointment, the valuer was to be nominated by the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
4. Liberty to apply. Any later application was to be made in the County Court where the case belonged, before a District Judge approved to try private and public family-law cases.
5. Costs and permission. The wife was awarded her costs in the Court of Appeal. The Circuit Judge’s order governing costs in both lower courts was left undisturbed. The court accepted the broad assessment that conduct and contribution issues had generated most of the costs and that neither party’s Calderbank offers justified a different result. Recoverable costs, if assessed, were limited to those of a recently appointed Queen’s Counsel acting alone. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from Kingston-upon-Thames County Court, the court dealt with consequential matters following its substantive judgments, amended the order, dismissed the husband’s cross-appeal, refused permission on the additional valuation ground and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
• Kingston-upon-Thames County Court: Proceedings had been determined before a District Judge and then considered by a Circuit Judge, whose costs order covering both lower courts was left undisturbed.