username

password

Established
Berkeley Lifford Hall Accountancy ServicesHousing Law WeekFamily Law WeekFamily Law WeekAlphabiolabs

Klamer v Klamer [2006] EWCA Civ 690

Application for permission to appeal a second time in ancillary relief proceedings refused.

Court of Appeal: Thorpe LJ (2 May 2006)

Summary
Application for permission to appeal a second time in ancillary relief proceedings refused.

Background
The parties to this appeal married in 1999. The applicant Wife was 57 and the respondent Husband 55. The parties' assets comprised a property in Hampstead worth £650,000 and a flat in Bournemouth worth £245,000. The Husband had an income by way of pension in sum of £7,284 pa and the similarly the Wife received £1,200 pa. The divorce and ancillary relief proceedings had been hotly contested involving cross allegations of conduct. The court at first instance, divided the assets in such a way as to leave the Husband with greater financial security, as he had been the greater contributor to the shared economy. The court was critical of the Wife's evidence and condemned her in a proportion of the husband's costs. On the Wife's appeal to the Family Division, the judge ruled in favour of the Husband and dismissed the appeal. The Wife applied for permission to appeal a second time. Therefore the Wife needed to satisfy the requirements of section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, that there was an important point of law or practice or some other compelling reason why permission should be granted. The Wife drew the Court's attention to Parra v Parra [2003] 1 FLR 942 where the Husband's appeal was allowed in order to divide the assets equally.

Judgment
Held, refusing permission to appeal, that the case did not come close to overcoming the formidable hurdle of section 55. Thorpe LJ concluded that the disparity of outcome between the Husband and Wife cannot in itself be an issue of principle of practice nor can it be a compelling reason. The court distinguished this case from the facts in Parra v Parra where the parties had initiated a community of property regime.

Read the full text of the judgment here