Jones v Jones

On an application for permission to appeal in ancillary relief proceedings, a ground must be sufficiently arguable to warrant the Court of Appeal’s attention in context. A marginal difference between alternative calculations may not justify permission, particularly where relevant financial findings reduce its significance. Permission is properly granted where a judge attributes a substantial proportion of a company’s value to pre-marital endeavour by adopting a percentage not argued for and apparently unsupported by the evidence. Related grounds challenging the resulting quantification may proceed with that issue.

The wife sought permission to appeal an ancillary relief order made by Charles J. The hearing took place in June and July 2009, and judgment was issued in March 2010. The proposed grounds challenged the use of a lower need figure, the attribution of 60% of the husband’s company value to pre-marital endeavour, the characterisation of the marriage as one-third of the business’s life, and the overall level of the award. The central issue was whether those grounds were sufficiently arguable to justify permission.

1. Ground 1. Permission was refused. The difference between the sharing figure of £5.8 million and the needs figure of £5.4 million was marginal in the context of assets approaching £25 million. The judge had also found that the wife received undisclosed and apparently continuing financial support from her mother. Those findings further reduced the significance of the alleged discrepancy.
2. Grounds 2 to 4. Permission was granted. The judge had attributed 60% of the value of the husband’s company at separation to the creative years before the marriage. The wife’s challenge was properly arguable because the percentage had not been advanced by either party, appeared unsupported by the evidence, and was said to conflict with the judge’s rejection elsewhere of arbitrary percentages. The challenge to the overall award and the related argument concerning the length of the marriage could therefore proceed. If ground 2 succeeded, the figures relevant to ground 4 would require adjustment.
3. The court did not determine the merits of the appeal. Thorpe LJ and Black LJ agreed with the order. The court also encouraged the parties to consider the proportionality of pursuing the appeal and the available mediation and alternative dispute resolution process.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2010] EWCA Civ 890, permission was refused on ground 1 and granted on grounds 2 to 4.
• High Court of Justice, Principal Registry of the Family Division — Charles J made the ancillary relief order under challenge. The judgment records that the hearing took place in June and July 2009 and that judgment was issued in March 2010.