Thompson v Prater [2004] EWCA Civ 989 (28 June 2004)

Thompson v Prater [2004] EWCA Civ 989 (28 June 2004)

The order made by the lower court was based on the assumption that Mr Prater could obtain a mortgage sufficient to rehouse himself, but evidence showed this was not possible. Therefore, the order could not be implemented as intended, and the matter must be remitted for further consideration.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 989
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Julie Elizabeth Thompson; Respondent/appellant: Stephen Leonard Prater
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted to county court for further consideration.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Disposition of Matrimonial Home, Mortgage Liability, Housing Needs of Children, Remarriage and Financial Orders
Family Law Ancillary Relief Disposition of Matrimonial Home Mortgage Liability Housing Needs of Children Remarriage and Financial Orders

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Elizabeth Thompson

Petitioner/respondent

Stephen Leonard Prater

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order requiring transfer of the husband's interest in the matrimonial home to the wife in full and final satisfaction of ancillary relief claims is practicable given mortgage constraints
  2. 2 Whether the parties' housing needs and the welfare of the children can be met under the existing orders

Ratio Decidendi

The order made by the lower court was based on the assumption that Mr Prater could obtain a mortgage sufficient to rehouse himself, but evidence showed this was not possible. Therefore, the order could not be implemented as intended, and the matter must be remitted for further consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted to county court for further consideration.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Case remitted to the county court