Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009

Sep 29, 2018, 21:15 PM
Financial remedies – Civil partnership – Non-disclosure – Consent order – Application set aside summarily dismissed
The woman’s appeal from a decision refusing permission to appeal a consent order on the basis of non-disclosure was allowed.
Slug : roocroft-v-ball-2016-ewca-civ-1009
Meta Title : Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009
Meta Keywords : Financial remedies – Civil partnership – Non-disclosure – Consent order – Application set aside summarily dismissed
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 14, 2016, 07:24 AM
Article ID : 114492

(Court of Appeal, Elias, Kitchin, King LJJ, 14 October 2016)

Financial remedies – Civil partnership – Non-disclosure – Consent order – Application set aside summarily dismissed

The woman’s appeal from a decision refusing permission to appeal a consent order on the basis of non-disclosure was allowed.

The two women were in a same-sex relationship for 18 years and a civil partnership for just under one year of that period. During the relationship one of the women, now deceased, was the breadwinner and financed the luxurious lifestyle which the couple enjoyed.

Following their separation the deceased made a financial offer to the other woman but it was refused. Maintenance pending suit of £1,250 pm was awarded but no provision was made for legal fees. An agreement was reached that the deceased would pay a lump sum of £162,000 and periodical payments of £18,050pa for 2 years. The woman was acting in person and accepted that she could seek independent legal advice. The deceased declared her gross income as £55,312 pa and net assets of £766,000 with a pension fund of £285,000. A consent order was made which included the provision that after the termination of the periodical payments in the event of the deceased’s death, no claim would be made of her estate.

Subsequently the deceased signed off company accounts showing shareholder funds of £5.5m and her annual income of £150,000. She died in 2013.

The woman applied to set aside the consent order on the basis of material non-disclosure. The judge at first instance dealing with the matter at an abbreviated hearing found that the application was doomed to failure and that the non-disclosure had not been material.

The appeal was allowed and the case would be remitted for reconsideration. The decision below could properly be characterised as a summary judgment for which the judge had no jurisdiction under the rules. He had also been wrong not to make findings of fact as to the alleged non-disclosure. Further he failed to address the issue of materiality against a finding of whether the non-disclosure was deliberate or inadvertent. He had peremptorily dismissed any question of the non-disclosure being material on the basis that the woman had agreed to the order knowing that there had been non-disclosure.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1009

Case No: B4/2014/2552

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Chester Civil and Family Justice Centre
His Honour Judge Barnett

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: 14/10/2016

Before:

LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
and
LADY JUSTICE KING

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

Helen Louise Roocroft
Appellant

- and -

Moya Margaret Ball 
(Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol Ann Ainscow (Dec’d))
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sally Harrison QC and Samantha Hillas (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Appellant
Richard Todd QC and Charles Eastwood (instructed by Glaisyers Solicitors) for the Respondent

Hearing date : 5 July 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009


Categories :
  • Financial Remedies
  • Judgments
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from