Lyustiger v Lyustiger

Lyustiger v Lyustiger

The application is hopeless as the jurisdictional argument is foreclosed by binding authority, the application for extension of time is unjustified, and there is no basis for re-opening the issue on grounds of per incuriam.

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, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Family Law Civil Procedure Maintenance Pending Suit Legal Costs Extension of Time Jurisdiction Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

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 4
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 out of time should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The application is hopeless as the jurisdictional argument is foreclosed by binding authority, the application for extension of time is unjustified, and there is no basis for re-opening the issue on grounds of per incuriam.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused