Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Kaur v Matharu [2010] EWCA Civ 930

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : 2010EWCA930
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 15, 2010, 04:10 AM
Article ID : 91383

(Court of Appeal, Sir Nicholas Wall P, Thorpe and Black LJJ, 23 June 2010)

The husband alleged that he was the bare trustee of a property for his brother who, he asserted, had put up money for the purchase and renovation. There was evidence that the mortgage on the property was discharged with money advanced by the husband's sister. The husband's brother obtained leave to intervene in proceedings culminating in a TOLATA application by the brother. The district judge rejected the TOLATA claim, concluding that both brother and husband were being deliberately dishonest.

In ancillary relief proceedings the judge transferred the property to the wife outright and free from mortgage. The husband appealed to the circuit judge, and sought leave to adduce fresh evidence in the form of a detailed affidavit from the sister (who had not been called to give evidence at the hearing by either the husband or the brother). The circuit judge took a day to decide the application, during which time he heard oral evidence from the sister and allowed fresh evidence. The wife appealed to the Court of Appeal, where there was an appeal in ancillary relief from the district judge to the circuit judge.

The appeal judge's discretion (under rule 8.1(3)(b) FPR) was not strictly bound by the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1WLR 1489. However, that discretion would be exercised in favour of the admission of fresh evidence only in exceptional cases.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from