Clarke v Clarke

Clarke v Clarke

The judge made an error regarding the evidence of Pauline Evans in relation to the second incident, making it unsafe to allow that finding to stand. However, the findings on the first and third incidents were supported by the evidence and not affected by the error. The appeal is allowed to the extent of deleting the finding on the second incident but upholding the findings on the first and third incidents.

Parties
Appellant: Donald Clarke; Respondent: Sandra Clarke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court Judgment on Contempt of Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Standard of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Family Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Standard of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Clarke

Appellant

Sandra Clarke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court Judgment on Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding the appellant in contempt of court for breaching an injunction by relying on mistaken evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge's error regarding corroboration by a witness vitiated all findings of breach

Ratio Decidendi

The judge made an error regarding the evidence of Pauline Evans in relation to the second incident, making it unsafe to allow that finding to stand. However, the findings on the first and third incidents were supported by the evidence and not affected by the error. The appeal is allowed to the extent of deleting the finding on the second incident but upholding the findings on the first and third incidents.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Finding of breach on second incident (24 May 2004) deleted
  • Findings on first and third incidents upheld