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/APPEAL: Moore v Moore [2009] EWCA Civ 433

Sep 29, 2018, 17:21 PM
Slug : moore-v-moore-2009-ewca-civ-433
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 3, 2009, 07:32 AM
Article ID : 85953

(Court of Appeal; Wall LJ and Holman J; 3 April 2009)

The wife issued an English divorce petition; the husband issued a Nigerian divorce petition. The husband was ordered to pay maintenance pending suit to the wife while the English court investigated the issue of jurisdiction. The husband failed to pay any maintenance, in breach of the order. After the Nigerian court granted the husband a Nigerian divorce, the wife discontinued her English divorce petition. However, the English court held that the husband was still required to pay the wife the arrears of maintenance pending suit, and made a charging order in respect of the arrears against a property beneficially owned by the husband. The husband sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal required the husband to give security for costs in the sum of £15,000 by 23 March 2009, the hearing date for the application being 2 April 2009. On the 26 March 2009 the husband sought variation of the order for security for costs.

Although the court was prepared to assume that there was jurisdiction to go behind the order for costs for security, the sum set was a matter of discretion, and in all the circumstances the sum required would not be reduced. Despite the husband's evidence from estate agents, the court was not satisfied that there was sufficient margin in the property owned by the husband to provide the wife with safe and good security in the event that the husband's appeal was unsuccessful. However, the timing of the order was a different issue. Justice required that the husband's application for permission to appeal go ahead, on the basis that the husband had additional time to make the relevant payment. As it was now highly unlikely that the case would be heard before May 2009, the husband was to be given until 30 April 2009 to raise the money, effectively 6 weeks from the date of the application to vary the order for security for costs. The appeal would stand dismissed if the husband did not pay by that date.

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