Hashem v Shayif & Ors

Hashem v Shayif & Ors

The judge was entitled to find that the only property within the nuptial settlement was a revocable license to occupy 17 Kensington Heights, not the entire leasehold interest, and to exercise discretion accordingly. The costs orders were within the broad ambit of judicial discretion and properly reasoned.

Parties
Applicant/wife: Faiza Ben Hashem; Respondent/husband: Abdulhadi Shaif; Respondent/company: Radfan Limited; Respondents/shareholders: Shaif's children (stepsons)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/chancery) / Application for Permission to Appeal (primary and Subsidiary Judgments)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Nuptial Settlements, Variation of Settlements, Costs Orders, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Trusts and Property Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Nuptial Settlements Variation of Settlements Costs Orders Appeal Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faiza Ben Hashem

Applicant/wife

Abdulhadi Shaif

Respondent/husband

Radfan Limited

Respondent/company

Shaif's children (stepsons)

Respondents/shareholders

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/chancery) / Application for Permission to Appeal (primary and Subsidiary Judgments)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding the only property within the nuptial settlement was a six-month license to occupy 17 Kensington Heights
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in the exercise of discretion in varying the settlement and making costs orders against the wife

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that the only property within the nuptial settlement was a revocable license to occupy 17 Kensington Heights, not the entire leasehold interest, and to exercise discretion accordingly. The costs orders were within the broad ambit of judicial discretion and properly reasoned.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal the primary judgment dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal the subsidiary (costs) judgment dismissed