Assoun v Assoun, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, May 18, 2017, [2017] EWCA Civ 370

Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Assoun v Assoun
Resolution Date:May 18, 2017
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 370

Case No: B6/2015/4082

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT IN LONDON

His Honour Judge Brasse

FD06D05405

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 18/05/2017

Before:

LORD JUSTICE BEATSON

THE SENIOR PRESIDENT OF TRIBUNALS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President:

  1. The Respondent wife makes application for payment-out of £30,000 that was ordered to be paid into court by Gloster and Macur LJJ on 14 July 2016. The basis for the application for payment-out to the wife is that she is still owed more than that sum by the Respondent Husband and the husband lost his appeal against the Hadkinson order to which the £30,000 payment relates.

  2. The husband opposes the payment-out on the basis that a) the purpose behind the direction was to provide legal representation which was provided pro bono rather than to fund any indebtedness and b) in any event, the wife has not been frank in her approach to this and other courts about the outstanding debt. The husband further submits that he should have the right to prioritise repayment of his debts to best serve his own interests which would include, for example, purging his contempt so that he might regain access to the court.

  3. My Lord, Beatson LJ and I have decided to determine the application on the written evidence and submissions provided by the parties. The submissions are based in well rehearsed arguments already made by the parties during the oral contested appeal hearing and the subsequent written application to re-open the same. It would be disproportionate to provide an opportunity for a further oral hearing thereby increasing the costs and indebtedness that exists in order to hear the same arguments again.

  4. This application was foreshadowed in the court's first judgment; Assoun [2017] EWCA 21 at [11] and [40]. In that judgment the court referred expressly to the purpose originally intended by Gloster LJ at [6] and by Gloster LJ and Macur LJ at [9]. The plain meaning of the words used by Gloster LJ in adjourning the permission to appeal hearing to a two judge court on 19 May 2016 was that the payment into court was to reflect a significant part of the debt owed by the husband to the wife. I acknowledge that the order made on 14 July 2016 (after a hearing on 13 July 2016) described the payment as being...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL