Corbett v Corbett [2003] EWCA Civ 559 (28 February 2003)

Corbett v Corbett [2003] EWCA Civ 559 (28 February 2003)

The judgment summons procedure used was not compliant with Human Rights Act requirements and the standards set in Mubarak v Mubarak; the judge failed to consider variation or remission of arrears as permitted by Rule 7.4(9); the order for imprisonment must be set aside.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 559
Parties
Appellant: Corbett; Respondent: Corbett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order of Mr Justice Hedley in Ancillary Relief Enforcement Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, Variation of Orders, Human Rights Compliance
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Variation of Orders Human Rights Compliance

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

Parties

Corbett

Appellant

Corbett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order of Mr Justice Hedley in Ancillary Relief Enforcement Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment summons procedure complied with Human Rights Act requirements
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly considered variation or remission of arrears under Family Proceedings Rules
  3. 3 Whether the husband's default was wilful

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment summons procedure used was not compliant with Human Rights Act requirements and the standards set in Mubarak v Mubarak; the judge failed to consider variation or remission of arrears as permitted by Rule 7.4(9); the order for imprisonment must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside

Orders

  • Order for one month's imprisonment suspended conditional on discharge of arrears by 31 January 2003 is set aside
  • Case requires realistic reappraisal of husband's obligation to make periodical payments