Haddad v Haddad

An ex tempore judgment and the exchanges immediately following it should be read together as a coherent whole when determining the order the judge intended to make. A clear percentage allocation in the sealed order is not a slip merely because another calculation might better reflect wording in the judgment. Permission to appeal may be refused while the court separately exercises its continuing powers to give or vary directions implementing an existing financial order. Those powers may be used to secure the best available sale price and effective completion, including by allowing competing purchasers, including a party, to contract on equal terms.

The parties had divorced but continued to occupy their former matrimonial home. An ancillary-relief order made in 2011 required its sale and provided that, after sale costs, 52.7 per cent of the net proceeds should be paid to the wife and the balance to the husband.

The husband later sought to alter that order under the slip rule and challenged directions made by District Judge Walker on 11 July 2014 requiring sale to a purchaser obtained by the wife for £620,000. He sought permission to appeal. By the hearing before the High Court, two prospective purchasers were ready and willing to proceed at £635,000, and the husband wished to match that offer. The issues were whether the original order contained an accidental slip and how the sale should now be implemented.

1. The application for permission to appeal from District Judge Walker’s order was refused. The court had not been provided with the district judge’s transcript or reasons and there was no sufficient basis to conclude that her approach had been wrong.

2. The application to amend the 2011 ancillary-relief order under the slip rule was hopeless. The judgment of Deputy District Judge Nicholes and the exchanges with counsel immediately afterwards had to be read together. Read coherently, they showed that the judge finally intended the wife to receive 52.7 per cent of the net proceeds, with the husband receiving the balance. The order therefore contained no accidental slip or omission.

3. Without granting permission to appeal, the High Court exercised its continuing powers to give and vary directions for the sale and implementation of the original order. The property was to be marketed at a gross price of £635,000, with completion 28 days after exchange. Contracts were to be sent simultaneously to the two prospective purchasers and to the husband, and the sale was to proceed to the first person to sign and exchange.

4. The existing direction permitting a district judge to sign documents if the husband refused to do so remained in force. Both parties were required to vacate the property by 5.00 p.m. on the day before completion, except that the husband need not vacate if he became the purchaser.

1. High Court (Family Division): permission to appeal from District Judge Walker’s order of 11 July 2014 refused. The High Court separately varied directions for implementation of the 2011 ancillary-relief order.

2. District Judge Walker: directed that the property be sold forthwith to the wife’s purchaser for £620,000. The citation of the decision is not stated in the judgment.

3. Deputy District Judge Nicholes: made the ancillary-relief order on 25 November 2011, requiring sale of the matrimonial home and allocation of the net proceeds.