No to de novo; “I was conned. I’m back” & appeals rerouted.
A LIGHT TOUCH
The agony of every time starting from scratch on a periodical payments variation application has been consigned to the family law rubbish bin. The Court of Appeal held in Morris v Morris [2016] EWCA Civ 812 that the court was not required to consider such an application de novo. Its obligation was to conduct an exercise which was proportionate to the requirements of the case. They might warrant a complete review but they could also justify a light touch review.
Lewis v Lewis [1977] 3 All ER 992 and Flavell v Flavell [ 1997] 1 FLR 353—so often trotted out to support the applicant’s 10,000th paragraphed kitchen sink witness statement—did not support the de novo proposition. The court had enormous flexibility to determine the nature of the variation application which focused on the relevant factors and—stand by again for the phrase which is set to come as popular as “with great respect”—apply that light touch. And the light touch review—ever
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
