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

APPEALS/COSTS: Rothwell v Rothwell [2008] EWCA Civ 1600

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : rothwell-v-rothwell-2008-ewca-civ-1600
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 25, 2009, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88817

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Jackson LJJ; 9 December 2008)

The husband sought to appeal an order made in ancillary relief proceedings. The Court of Appeal directed an oral hearing of the husband's application, on the basis that the judge had arguably misunderstood some of the financial information, and had thereby been led into a mathematical error. The Court also issued letters inviting the husband and wife to resolve outstanding issues within the court's ADR scheme, on the basis that there should be no further costs if mediation were successful. Mediation between the parties resulted in a clear agreement. However, the husband then appeared to resile from the agreement, in that he refused to honour a cheque sent in partial settlement of the wife's mediation award. After the Court of Appeal directed an oral hearing to show cause why the appeal should not be disposed of in accordance with the mediated agreement, the husband indicated that he was content for there to be a consent order in the terms of the mediated agreement. The wife sought her costs for the period since the mediation.

The wife would have incurred some professional costs after the mediation even without the husband's vacillation. There would be no order as to costs. The husband's concession that the proceedings could be disposed of by a consent order in terms of the mediated agreement had been wisely made. The principle that once the parties had arrived at a compromise of litigation, the court would uphold and enforce that compromise, absent some vitiating element, applied in the Court of Appeal to a contractual compromise of pending appellate proceedings. The Court of Appeal ADR scheme had had a relatively low take up from family appeals, but an encouragingly high success rate, and it was important that the court should signify that if parties arrived at a clear compromise, within the mediation process, the compromise would be robustly upheld by the court.

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