K v L [2010] EWCA Civ 125 (15 January 2010)

K v L [2010] EWCA Civ 125 (15 January 2010)

The judge was entitled to give significant weight to the husband's grave misconduct, the source of the wife's wealth, and his 1993 promise, and to limit the lump sum and make a costs order accordingly; the weight attached to these factors was within the judge's discretion and not open to appellate interference absent error of principle.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 125
Parties
Applicant: K; Respondent: L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Financial Provision on Divorce, Misconduct in Matrimonial Proceedings, Costs Orders
Family Law Ancillary Relief Financial Provision on Divorce Misconduct in Matrimonial Proceedings Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Applicant

L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (ancillary Relief) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in awarding a nominal lump sum and a costs order against the husband in light of his misconduct and the wife's wealth
  2. 2 Whether the husband's misconduct was given excessive or punitive weight in the ancillary relief award
  3. 3 Whether the judge double-counted misconduct in both substantive and costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to give significant weight to the husband's grave misconduct, the source of the wife's wealth, and his 1993 promise, and to limit the lump sum and make a costs order accordingly; the weight attached to these factors was within the judge's discretion and not open to appellate interference absent error of principle.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • No order on application for extension of time