Karia v Karia & Ors

In permission-to-appeal proceedings, an adjournment to investigate fresh material may be refused where, even when viewed at face value and favourably to the applicant, the material cannot support an amended ground with a reasonable prospect of success. Limited social-worker material will not ordinarily undermine a trial judge’s findings based on credibility and direct observation unless it materially engages with those findings. A minor inconsistency or a single line of potential expert opinion is insufficient to justify reopening a concluded financial determination. The court should take a robust view where the proposed points, separately or together, have no realistic prospect of supporting an appeal.

Prospective appellants sought permission to appeal financial provision orders made by Parker J in divorce proceedings. The proposed appellants were the husband and two of his sisters. At an earlier oral renewal hearing on 3 December 2014, all pleaded grounds had been found to lack a reasonable prospect of success, but the application was adjourned to permit consideration of a protected addendum assessment report prepared during care proceedings concerning the parties’ children.

At the adjourned hearing, counsel for the prospective appellants sought further time and possession of the report to consider amended grounds. The central issue was whether the report contained material capable of providing a viable basis for reopening or challenging the financial judgment.

The Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice McFarlane, refused the further adjournment. The grounds remained as considered on 3 December 2014, and permission to appeal was refused for all three prospective appellants.

1. Approach to the protected report. The report was assessed at face value and with the evidence viewed favourably to the husband, despite substantial caveats concerning its production and reliability. It principally concerned the welfare of the children in care proceedings and annexed records of meetings conducted during a comprehensive welfare assessment.
2. Domestic-violence material. References to the wife’s reports of control and heightened professional concern about possible domestic violence did not materially engage with Parker J’s findings. Those findings rested substantially on the wife’s credibility and the judge’s own observations of the parties during the financial trial. The report did not establish physical violence, which had not been alleged or found, and could not realistically undermine the judge’s assessment of the relationship’s power balance.
3. Other proposed grounds. The wife’s reported inability to remember matters did not constitute fresh evidence capable of overturning the judge’s overall conclusions, particularly where it merely resonated with evidence already given at trial. A social worker’s note recording a single statement about contributions to family finances was insignificant and could not support setting aside or reopening the judgment.
4. Opinion evidence. The social worker’s observations about jewellery practices among Gujarati women were, at most, a one-line potential expert opinion. Treating that material as a viable ground of appeal was fanciful and could not provide a realistic prospect of success.

The court concluded that none of the four matters, separately or together, could support a fresh ground of appeal. The application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 3 December 2014, the oral renewal application for permission to appeal was considered. The pleaded grounds were found to have no reasonable prospect of success, but the application was adjourned to permit controlled consideration of a protected addendum assessment report.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 January 2015, the court refused a further adjournment, confirmed the earlier view, and refused permission to appeal.