Williams v Lindley

Williams v Lindley

The wife's engagement and marriage to Mr Lindley shortly after the consent order constituted a supervening event that invalidated the basis of the order, as the lump sum was premised on her need to rehouse herself and the children. The judge erred by focusing on the parties' financial positions at the time of the rehearing rather than considering whether the supervening event would have led to a substantially different order if foreseen. Permission to appeal out of time should have been granted, and the matter must be remitted for rehearing.

Parties
Appellant: Williams; Respondent: Lindley (formerly Williams)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Appeal From Refusal to Set Aside Consent Order; Application for Permission to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application granted; matter remitted for rehearing
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Consent Orders, Supervening Events, Appeal Out of Time, Financial Provision, Reassessment Under Matrimonial Causes Act
Family Law Ancillary Relief Consent Orders Supervening Events Appeal Out of Time Financial Provision Reassessment Under Matrimonial Causes Act

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams

Appellant

Lindley (formerly Williams)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/ancillary Relief) / Appeal From Refusal to Set Aside Consent Order; Application for Permission to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife's remarriage constituted a supervening event invalidating the basis of the consent order for financial provision
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to appeal out of time and in his approach to the Barder principles
  3. 3 Whether reassessment should be based on asset values at the time of the consent order or at the time of rehearing

Ratio Decidendi

The wife's engagement and marriage to Mr Lindley shortly after the consent order constituted a supervening event that invalidated the basis of the order, as the lump sum was premised on her need to rehouse herself and the children. The judge erred by focusing on the parties' financial positions at the time of the rehearing rather than considering whether the supervening event would have led to a substantially different order if foreseen. Permission to appeal out of time should have been granted, and the matter must be remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application granted; matter remitted for rehearing

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal out of time granted
  • Appeal allowed