Charman v Charman [2006] EWCA Civ 1791 (11 December 2006)

Charman v Charman [2006] EWCA Civ 1791 (11 December 2006)

There was no compelling reason to impose a condition of security for the lump sum or to strike out grounds of appeal, as the husband was not in breach of any order at the time and there was insufficient evidence of likely non-compliance or unenforceability. Security for costs was appropriate due to the husband's residence outside the jurisdiction.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1791
Parties
Respondent/applicant: Beverley Anne Charman; Appellant/respondent: John Robert Charman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief Appeal (family Law) / Application in the Court of Appeal Regarding Conditions on Permission to Appeal and Security for Costs
Outcome
Applications for security for the lump sum and to strike out grounds of appeal refused; application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Financial Provision on Divorce, Freezing Injunctions, Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Financial Provision on Divorce Freezing Injunctions Security for Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverley Anne Charman

Respondent/applicant

John Robert Charman

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief Appeal (family Law) / Application in the Court of Appeal Regarding Conditions on Permission to Appeal and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to impose a condition of security for payment of a lump sum on the husband's permission to appeal
  2. 2 Whether to strike out certain grounds of appeal
  3. 3 Whether to order security for costs against the husband

Ratio Decidendi

There was no compelling reason to impose a condition of security for the lump sum or to strike out grounds of appeal, as the husband was not in breach of any order at the time and there was insufficient evidence of likely non-compliance or unenforceability. Security for costs was appropriate due to the husband's residence outside the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for the lump sum and to strike out grounds of appeal refused; application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Husband to provide security for costs of £225,000 by 31 December or by alternative acceptable means.