Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles

COSTS/ANCILLARY RELIEF/APPEALS: Charman v Charman (Security for Costs) [2006] EWCA Civ 1791

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : charman-v-charman-security-for-costs-2006-ewca-civ-1791
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 11, 2007, 10:55 AM
Article ID : 87957

(Court of Appeal; Sir Mark Potter, Thorpe and Wilson LJJ; 11 December 2006)

At the conclusion of the financial relief proceedings the husband, a resident of Bermuda, had been ordered to pay the wife a lump sum of £40m, £12m of which was to be paid on or before 31 August 2006. When the husband failed to pay £4m of the £12m by the due date, the wife was granted a freezing order up to the value of the outstanding liability. The husband subsequently paid the outstanding £4m, but no interest; the court directed that he was to pay the remaining £28m on or before 1 March 2007. The husband was given leave to appeal against the judge's award, and was granted a stay of execution in respect of the remaining £28m. The wife argued that the permission to appeal should be subject to a condition that the husband provide security for the outstanding £28m plus interest and also that the husband should provide security for the wife's costs of the appeal.

The court would not assume that the husband's determination to protect what he regarded as his wealth generated entirely by his own efforts would necessarily extend to refusal to pay under a judgment of the Court of Appeal if his appeal were unsuccessful. Events pre judgment were merely background; it was events post judgment which were of concern to the appellate court, in particular whether there had been a failure to pay under the judgment and whether there was reason to suppose that if the appeal failed the judgment would not be paid and, if so, whether the judgment was amenable to the normal procedures for enforcement. The husband should not be treated as in breach of any order of the court at this stage and his likely failure to make payment on 1 March 2007 should not be regarded as a compelling reason to make an order for security. However, security for costs in the sum of £225,000 should be ordered under CPR Part 25.13(2)(a) on the basis that the husband was resident outside the jurisdiction, not in a Brussels or Lugano Contracting State.

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