Dutt v Dutt [2005] EWCA Civ 1193 (25 October 2005)

Dutt v Dutt [2005] EWCA Civ 1193 (25 October 2005)

The appellant's persistent failure to disclose assets and obstructive conduct justified the judge's findings and orders for transfer of property, pension sharing, and periodical payments; the judge's exercise of discretion was unimpeachable and no arguable grounds for appeal were established.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1193
Parties
Appellant: Dr Dev Dutt; Respondent: Catherine Sarah Dutt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Ancillary Relief Orders
Outcome
All applications for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Maintenance Pending Suit, Pension Sharing, Periodical Payments, Disclosure of Assets, Case Management Orders
Family Law Ancillary Relief Maintenance Pending Suit Pension Sharing Periodical Payments Disclosure of Assets Case Management 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Dev Dutt

Appellant

Catherine Sarah Dutt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Ancillary Relief Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ancillary relief order made by HH Judge Finnerty on 9 December 2004 was erroneous in law or discretion
  2. 2 Whether interim and case management orders were properly made
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's failure to disclose assets justified adverse inferences and the quantum of maintenance and pension sharing

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's persistent failure to disclose assets and obstructive conduct justified the judge's findings and orders for transfer of property, pension sharing, and periodical payments; the judge's exercise of discretion was unimpeachable and no arguable grounds for appeal were established.

Court Disposition

All applications for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against orders of 29 January 2004, 6 February 2004, 24 March 2004, 23 April 2004, and 9 December 2004 refused.
  • Ancillary relief orders remain in force.