31 Mar 2016
VE (nee KE) v. VRJ
- Citation
- VE (nee KE) v. VRJ
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCMC7676/2011
Leave to appeal denied because appellant had no reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge rightly considered contingent Legal Aid liabilities when assessing parties' needs under s7 MPPO and was entitled to treat DLA first charge as a relevant contingent factor; alleged litigation conducts were not proved to be 'obvious and gross' and were properly a matter for costs rather than altering division; discretionary exercise of trial court was not shown to be wrong in principle or plainly wrong.