Munasinghe v Munasinghe [2002] EWCA Civ 570 (17 April 2002)

Munasinghe v Munasinghe [2002] EWCA Civ 570 (17 April 2002)

There was no important point of principle or practice, nor any compelling reason, to grant permission for a second appeal. The lower courts had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the husband's disability and the treatment of pension entitlements, and made a fair and equal division of assets. There was no error of law or fact justifying appellate intervention.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 570
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Mooi Chin Munasinghe; Respondent/applicant: Abhaya Wimaladharma Kirethi Munasinghe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Following Divorce / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Pension Entitlement, Clean Break, Discretionary Distribution, Appeals Process
Family Law Ancillary Relief Division of Matrimonial Assets Pension Entitlement Clean Break Discretionary Distribution Appeals Process

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mooi Chin Munasinghe

Petitioner/respondent

Abhaya Wimaladharma Kirethi Munasinghe

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Following Divorce / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower courts erred in making an equal division of matrimonial assets without further consideration of pension entitlements and the husband's disabilities
  2. 2 Whether there was a compelling reason or important point of principle or practice to grant permission for a second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

There was no important point of principle or practice, nor any compelling reason, to grant permission for a second appeal. The lower courts had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the husband's disability and the treatment of pension entitlements, and made a fair and equal division of assets. There was no error of law or fact justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No further orders made