Williams-Wynne v Williams-Wynne & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1254 (20 July 2006)

Williams-Wynne v Williams-Wynne & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1254 (20 July 2006)

The judge was entitled to refuse amortisation of the wife's capital and to award her £60,000 per year, given the unique circumstances of the family estate and the need to balance the wife's needs with the preservation of generational assets. The costs order, however, lacked sufficient explanation for the sum awarded beyond the wife's actual costs, justifying permission to appeal on that point alone.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1254
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Williams-Wynne; Defendant/respondent: Williams-Wynne & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on substantive grounds; granted on costs issue only.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Financial Provision on Divorce, Costs Orders, Amortisation of Capital, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Ancillary Relief Financial Provision on Divorce Costs Orders Amortisation of Capital Judicial Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams-Wynne

Claimant/appellant

Williams-Wynne & Anr

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in failing to amortise the wife's capital provision
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in the scale of income awarded to the wife
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the husband was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse amortisation of the wife's capital and to award her £60,000 per year, given the unique circumstances of the family estate and the need to balance the wife's needs with the preservation of generational assets. The costs order, however, lacked sufficient explanation for the sum awarded beyond the wife's actual costs, justifying permission to appeal on that point alone.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on substantive grounds; granted on costs issue only.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on the substantive application refused.
  • Permission to appeal on the costs order granted.