K v L

K v L

The judge exercised his discretion properly in weighing the husband's misconduct, the source of the wife's wealth, and the 1993 promise; the award and costs order were not outside the range of reasonable decisions, and no error of law or principle was shown to justify granting permission to appeal.

Parties
Applicant (husband): K; Respondent (wife): L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; no order on extension of time application.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Misconduct in Matrimonial Proceedings, Costs Orders, Clean Break, Discretionary Appeals
Family Law Ancillary Relief Misconduct in Matrimonial Proceedings Costs Orders Clean Break Discretionary Appeals

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Applicant (husband)

L

Respondent (wife)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the ancillary relief order and costs order
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in weighing the husband's misconduct in the ancillary relief award
  3. 3 Whether the costs order involved double-counting of misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised his discretion properly in weighing the husband's misconduct, the source of the wife's wealth, and the 1993 promise; the award and costs order were not outside the range of reasonable decisions, and no error of law or principle was shown to justify granting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; no order on extension of time application.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused.
  • No order on application for extension of time.