Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from