Lyustiger v Lyustiger [2006] EWCA Civ 1311 (26 July 2006)

Lyustiger v Lyustiger [2006] EWCA Civ 1311 (26 July 2006)

The application is refused because it is hopeless both on jurisdictional grounds and for extension of time; the court's jurisdiction to award legal costs as part of maintenance pending suit is settled law, and the application is grossly out of time without adequate explanation.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1311
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lyustiger; Defendant/respondent: Lyustiger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pending Suit, Legal Costs, Jurisdiction, Extension of Time, Per Incuriam Doctrine
Family Law Civil Procedure Maintenance Pending Suit Legal Costs Jurisdiction Extension of Time Per Incuriam Doctrine

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

Parties

Lyustiger

Claimant/appellant

Lyustiger

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to include legal costs in a maintenance pending suit order under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the application for permission to appeal should be granted out of time
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Moses-Taiga v Taiga was per incuriam

Ratio Decidendi

The application is refused because it is hopeless both on jurisdictional grounds and for extension of time; the court's jurisdiction to award legal costs as part of maintenance pending suit is settled law, and the application is grossly out of time without adequate explanation.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused