B v B

B v B

Permission to appeal is granted because there is an arguable case that the district judge double-counted by awarding an additional lump sum for past income disparity after equalising assets, and that the circuit judge's communication with the district judge was procedurally improper.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Barry B; Respondent: Ann B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) and Extension of Time
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted; extension of time granted
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Assets, Double Counting, Appellate Procedure, Clean Break, Pension Sharing

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Barry B

Applicant

Ann B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) and Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred by double-counting in awarding a lump sum for disparity of past income after equal division of assets
  2. 2 Whether the district judge erred in attributing capital as income for the purpose of balancing payments
  3. 3 Whether the circuit judge's communication with the district judge during the appeal was procedurally improper

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted because there is an arguable case that the district judge double-counted by awarding an additional lump sum for past income disparity after equalising assets, and that the circuit judge's communication with the district judge was procedurally improper.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted; extension of time granted

Orders

  • Applicant to file a written statement by his former solicitor explaining the delay in filing the appeal