Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: F v F [2007] EWCA Civ 29

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : f-v-f-2007-ewca-civ-29
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 31, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85249

(Court of Appeal; Ward and Wilson LJJ; 31 January 2007)

A former business partner of the husband had, following her intervention in the financial relief proceedings, been granted a charge over the former matrimonial property equivalent to 17% of the gross proceeds of sale. At the time the charge was made the wife and the three children had been living in the property and the order stated that the charge over the property would not be exercisable until either (i) November 2012, or (ii) the wife had remarried, or cohabited with someone as man and wife for 12 months. Subsequently the children all moved out to live with the husband. The former business partner sought to enforce the charge, arguing that the order had been incorrectly drafted and should have been worded so that the charge would be exercisable if the property were no longer needed to provide the children with a home. The husband had registered a unilateral notice at the land registry, supposedly in relation to his claim against the wife for financial provision for the children. Because of pressure of business it was not possible for the original judge to hear the case; eventually another judge amended the order under the slip rule, postponing enforcement of the charge for 6 months to give the wife time to raise the money; the husband's notice, which had made it more difficult for the wife to raise a loan against the house, was to be removed. In a proviso to the order, if the wife could persuade the court that she had used her best efforts to raise the entire sum and had paid over whatever sum she had raised, enforcement of the charge could be further suspended.

The original order had been misdrafted and could be amended under the slip rule. The original judge had intended that the charge should be postponed until the house was no longer required as a home for the petitioner and at least one of the children; the charge would therefore be enforced if the petitioner wife were living there alone. The subsequent amendment had itself been misdrafted, and would have to be properly drawn. It had been reasonable to allow the wife 6 months in which to raise the money, and was now reasonable to allow an extension of 4 weeks in view of the appeal and further difficulties created by the husband. However, the court had no jurisdiction to suspend enforcement of the charge upon payment of a lesser sum. The court had limited discretion to postpone a sale to give the chargor reasonable time to discharge the mortgage debt, but once the event entitling foreclosure had occurred then the court could not substantially change the terms of the charge.

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