20 January 2012 / David Burrows

Issue: 7497 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family

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

Another roll of the dice?

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

(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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations

The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment

NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law

Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes

NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession

The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

Error message

Another roll of the dice?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield