KSJ v WRW

KSJ v WRW

All four applications for permission to appeal are dismissed because the housing fund is fixed by prior order and statute, the periodical payments and costs orders were proper exercises of judicial discretion, the section 91(14) order was lawfully made, and there is no evidence of bias warranting recusal.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: KSJ; Respondent: WRW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (family/children/financial Provision) / Applications for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
All four applications for permission to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Financial Provision for Children, Variation of Periodical Payments, Housing Fund for Child and Parent, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction to Vary Orders, Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Orders, Recusal of Judge
Family Law Child Law Financial Provision for Children Variation of Periodical Payments Housing Fund for Child and Parent Costs Orders Jurisdiction to Vary Orders Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 Orders +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KSJ

Appellant

WRW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (family/children/financial Provision) / Applications for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the housing fund for the child and mother could be increased beyond £1.1 million
  2. 2 Whether the periodical payments should be increased or backdated
  3. 3 Whether the child should be separately represented in variation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

All four applications for permission to appeal are dismissed because the housing fund is fixed by prior order and statute, the periodical payments and costs orders were proper exercises of judicial discretion, the section 91(14) order was lawfully made, and there is no evidence of bias warranting recusal.

Court Disposition

All four applications for permission to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal against the orders of Bennett J (5 Nov 2007, 9 May 2008, 21 May 2008) and Pauffley J (18 Apr 2008) are dismissed.
  • No further stay beyond the date of judgment.