Tuckett v Tuckett
The applicant failed to demonstrate any important point of law or practice or other compelling reason for a second appeal. The lower courts' valuation of assets and case management decisions were not plainly wrong. There was no basis for admitting fresh evidence or extending time. There was no breach of the applicant's right to a fair hearing.
- Parties
- Petitioner/respondent: Jane Maria deCourcy Tuckett; Respondent/applicant: William Roger Quentin Tuckett
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal Matrimonial Ancillary Relief / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Applications refused
- Legal Topics
- Ancillary Relief, Appeals, Case Management, Valuation of Assets, Extension of Time, Admission of Fresh Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jane Maria deCourcy Tuckett
Petitioner/respondent
William Roger Quentin Tuckett
Respondent/applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Matrimonial Ancillary Relief / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against orders in ancillary relief proceedings
- 2 Whether extension of time for appeal should be granted
- 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate any important point of law or practice or other compelling reason for a second appeal. The lower courts' valuation of assets and case management decisions were not plainly wrong. There was no basis for admitting fresh evidence or extending time. There was no breach of the applicant's right to a fair hearing.
Court Disposition
Applications refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
- Extension of time refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment