Clark v Clark & Anor [1999] EWCA Civ 1349 (6 May 1999)

Clark v Clark & Anor [1999] EWCA Civ 1349 (6 May 1999)

The wife's appeal was dismissed as her conduct (marital and litigation misconduct) warranted a substantial reduction in financial provision. The husband's cross appeal was allowed, as the trial judge failed to sufficiently reflect the wife's misconduct in the award. The Court of Appeal substituted a reduced lump sum and ordered transfer of properties, finding the wife's claims to Wellow Park and higher award unjustified given the facts and evidence.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 1349
Parties
Petitioner/appellant/respondent: George Nowell Clark; Respondent/applicant/appellant: Julia Oriska Lambe Clark
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief Appeal (divorce Financial Provision) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Wife's appeal dismissed; husband's cross appeal allowed; substituted order for reduced lump sum and property transfers; no order as to costs; leave to appeal to House of Lords refused; stay granted until 20 May 1999.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Financial Provision, Marital Misconduct, Litigation Misconduct, Undue Influence
Family Law Ancillary Relief Financial Provision Marital Misconduct Litigation Misconduct Undue Influence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Nowell Clark

Petitioner/appellant/respondent

Julia Oriska Lambe Clark

Respondent/applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief Appeal (divorce Financial Provision) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife's conduct (marital and litigation misconduct) should affect the quantum of financial provision
  2. 2 Whether the wife's psychological needs entitle her to retain Wellow Park
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in quantifying the wife's award and rationale

Ratio Decidendi

The wife's appeal was dismissed as her conduct (marital and litigation misconduct) warranted a substantial reduction in financial provision. The husband's cross appeal was allowed, as the trial judge failed to sufficiently reflect the wife's misconduct in the award. The Court of Appeal substituted a reduced lump sum and ordered transfer of properties, finding the wife's claims to Wellow Park and higher award unjustified given the facts and evidence.

Court Disposition

Wife's appeal dismissed; husband's cross appeal allowed; substituted order for reduced lump sum and property transfers; no order as to costs; leave to appeal to House of Lords refused; stay granted until 20 May 1999.

Orders

  • Transfer of Middlebridge Street and Cornmarket Street to husband
  • Wife restrained from charging or further charging either property