header-logo header-logo

20 January 2012 / David Burrows
Issue: 7497 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Another roll of the dice?

To set aside or not to set aside? David Burrows reviews Livock

 

The cris de coeur of Coleridge J in Livock v Livock [2011] EWHC (Fam) 3040 reminds us all of the need to distinguish clearly between the different forms of court application where fresh evidence is thought to have emerged or to have been overlooked by the first instance court. Such applications may take one or more of the following forms:
 
(i) for permission to appeal out of time in matrimonial financial order proceedings (per Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening) [1988] AC 20, [1987] 2 All ER 440);
(ii) to set aside an order where it is vitiated by subsequent events;
(iii) to vary a financial order (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 31); or
(iv) an appeal with application to the appeal court to admit fresh evidence.
 
In Livock Coleridge J had made an order on 21 December 2009, intended mostly to provide the wife with £600,000 for her re-housing. He was aware that the husband was
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll