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
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
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Wyatt v Vince

Sep 29, 2018, 21:08 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-wyatt-v-vince
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2013, 10:01 AM
Article ID : 102881

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Jackson, Tomlinson LJJ, 13 June 2013)

During the course of financial remedy proceedings the wife was awarded an A v A order of £125,000 representing past and future legal fees. The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal and set aside the A v A order and the husband sought repayment of the sums paid to the wife.

The case was distinguishable from the authorities upon which the wife had relied. The wife had not failed at trial on the substantive issues but in respect of the A v A order itself. It was clear that if the husband's challenge of the order had been successful sooner then the two instalments in question would not have been paid. The wife's solicitors had been aware of the husband's appeal proceedings and therefore that there was an element of risk in their future conduct of the litigation.

The husband was entitled to an order for the return of the sums paid under the A v A order from the date upon which it had been apparent that the security provided by that order had been vulnerable to appeal, namely, when the husband had filed his application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

 

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