Peters v Peters

Permission for a second appeal requires a high statutory threshold: an important point of practice or principle, or another compelling reason. An appellate court does not rehear factual issues merely because an appellant considers the lower court’s conclusions wrong. Findings stand unless there is an error of law or an unsafe conclusion. The preliminary nature of a ruling and the interlocutory character of a freezing order may reinforce the need for the final substantive hearing rather than justify a second appeal.

The husband sought permission to bring a second appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by HHJ Hollis in the Eastbourne County Court. The underlying proceedings concerned ancillary relief following the breakdown of the parties’ marriage. A preliminary issue concerned the beneficial ownership of an investment portfolio said to be worth approximately £225,000. DJ Robinson made findings adverse to the husband, and HHJ Hollis dismissed his appeal. The central question was whether the proposed second appeal satisfied the statutory threshold for permission.

Application refused.

1. Section 55 imposed a high threshold for a second appeal. Permission required demonstration of an important point of practice or principle, or some other compelling reason. Granting permission was very exceptional.
2. The husband’s proposed challenge amounted to disagreement with the district judge’s factual conclusions. An appeal from a district judge to a circuit judge is governed by ordinary appellate principles. It is not a rehearing. Findings of fact stand unless the appellant demonstrates an error of law or an unsafe conclusion. No such error or unsafe conclusion was shown, and the husband could not satisfy the section 55 threshold.
3. The ruling under challenge concerned only a preliminary issue in ancillary relief proceedings. The freezing order was interlocutory. The substantive discretionary adjudication remained to be undertaken, and bringing the case to final hearing promptly was the appropriate course.

Order: application refused.

1. Eastbourne County Court: DJ Robinson determined the preliminary issue concerning the beneficial ownership of the investment portfolio.
2. Eastbourne County Court on appeal: HHJ Hollis dismissed the husband’s appeal against DJ Robinson’s judgment and order.
3. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission for a second appeal and ordered that the application be refused: [2011] EWCA Civ 1563.