Eve v Spratt [2002] EWCA Civ 580 (16 April 2002)

Eve v Spratt [2002] EWCA Civ 580 (16 April 2002)

Permission to appeal was refused because the case did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor was there any other compelling reason. The circuit judge correctly applied the restrictive approach from Cordle v Cordle, and there was no procedural irregularity or plainly wrong decision by the district judge. The applicant's inability to present further evidence did not amount to unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 580
Parties
Appellant: Eve; Respondent: Spratt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (second Tier Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Appeals, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Procedural Irregularity, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Appeals Admission of Fresh Evidence Procedural Irregularity Judicial Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eve

Appellant

Spratt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (second Tier Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted for a second-tier appeal in ancillary relief proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the circuit judge correctly applied the principles in Cordle v Cordle regarding the scope of appeal and admission of fresh evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a procedural irregularity or a plainly wrong decision by the district judge

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the case did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor was there any other compelling reason. The circuit judge correctly applied the restrictive approach from Cordle v Cordle, and there was no procedural irregularity or plainly wrong decision by the district judge. The applicant's inability to present further evidence did not amount to unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused
  • No order as to costs