SW v RC [2008] EWHC 73 (Fam) (24 January 2008)

SW v RC [2008] EWHC 73 (Fam) (24 January 2008)

The district judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the appellant's financial resources and lifestyle justified the maintenance order, and that his lack of disclosure and conduct warranted the costs order. The appeal was out of time and there was no sufficient reason to extend time. No error of law or principle was found in the exercise of discretion by the lower courts.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 73 (Fam)
Parties
Appellant Father: SW; Respondent Mother: RC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Child Maintenance Variation and Costs) / Judgment on Appeal Against Variation and Costs Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Variation of Maintenance Orders, Costs in Family Proceedings, Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Maintenance Variation of Maintenance Orders Costs in Family Proceedings Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SW

Appellant Father

RC

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Child Maintenance Variation and Costs) / Judgment on Appeal Against Variation and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in refusing to vary child maintenance under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the costs order made against the appellant was justified
  3. 3 Whether the appeal against the 2005 decision was out of time and if so whether time should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the appellant's financial resources and lifestyle justified the maintenance order, and that his lack of disclosure and conduct warranted the costs order. The appeal was out of time and there was no sufficient reason to extend time. No error of law or principle was found in the exercise of discretion by the lower courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal to vary maintenance dismissed
  • Appeal against costs order dismissed