Rickards v Rickards [1989] EWCA Civ 8 (20 June 1989)

Rickards v Rickards [1989] EWCA Civ 8 (20 June 1989)

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judge's refusal to extend time for appealing from a registrar's order, as the previous decision in Podberry v. Peak was given per incuriam and misapplied Lane v. Esdaile. On the merits, the judge's refusal to extend time was a proper exercise of discretion, as the husband's proposed appeal lacked merit and the delay was not justified by the legal aid issue.

Citation
[1989] EWCA Civ 8
Parties
Petitioner: Mrs. Rickards; Respondent: Mr. Rickards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 1989
Procedural Posture
Divorce/family Law Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Refusal to Extend Time for Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Extension of Time, Stare Decisis, Clean Break Orders, Jurisdiction
Family Law Civil Procedure Appeals Extension of Time Stare Decisis Clean Break Orders Jurisdiction

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Rickards

Petitioner

Mr. Rickards

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce/family Law Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Refusal to Extend Time for Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judge's refusal to extend time for appealing from a registrar's order
  2. 2 Whether the judge's refusal to extend time was a proper exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judge's refusal to extend time for appealing from a registrar's order, as the previous decision in Podberry v. Peak was given per incuriam and misapplied Lane v. Esdaile. On the merits, the judge's refusal to extend time was a proper exercise of discretion, as the husband's proposed appeal lacked merit and the delay was not justified by the legal aid issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; legal aid taxation of both parties' costs