White v White [2003] EWCA Civ 924 (19 May 2003)

White v White [2003] EWCA Civ 924 (19 May 2003)

The judge at first instance correctly applied the statutory criteria under TOLATA, properly considered the welfare of the children, and exercised his discretion in ordering the sale of the property. The procedural mismanagement in not conjoining the TOLATA and Schedule 1 Children Act applications did not result in substantial injustice warranting a retrial.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 924
Parties
Respondent: Deborah White; Appellant: Mark White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment on TOLATA Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata), Children Act 1989, Order for Sale of Jointly Owned Property, Residence Order, Case Management in Family Property Disputes
Family Law Property Law Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata) Children Act 1989 Order for Sale of Jointly Owned Property Residence Order Case Management in Family Property Disputes

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah White

Respondent

Mark White

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment on TOLATA Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the county court erred in granting an immediate order for sale of the family home under TOLATA
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly consider the welfare of the children and the competing statutory regimes under TOLATA and the Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied the statutory criteria under section 15 of TOLATA

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance correctly applied the statutory criteria under TOLATA, properly considered the welfare of the children, and exercised his discretion in ordering the sale of the property. The procedural mismanagement in not conjoining the TOLATA and Schedule 1 Children Act applications did not result in substantial injustice warranting a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for sale of property stands
  • No retrial of TOLATA application