In the matter of II [2011] JCA 126 (29 June 2011)

In the matter of II [2011] JCA 126 (29 June 2011)

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. The grounds of appeal, including the recusal argument and challenges to the Royal Court's evidentiary and financial rulings, lacked merit except for one point: the Royal Court erred by focusing on the equity in a single property rather than the applicant's overall net asset position when ordering the lump sum payment. The Court of Appeal found this error material and, rather than remit the matter, decided to determine the appropriate order itself.

Citation
[2011] JCA 126
Parties
Applicant/petitioner: A; Respondent/respondent: B
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (ancillary Relief/family) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Substantive Appeal Grounds
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal granted in part; original lump sum order set aside and matter determined by Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Extension of Time, Recusal of Judge, Matrimonial Property, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Extension of Time Recusal of Judge Matrimonial Property Appeal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant/petitioner

B

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (ancillary Relief/family) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Substantive Appeal Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the Royal Court's order of 21 December 2010
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal, including grounds of judicial bias, evidentiary rulings, and the fairness of the financial order

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. The grounds of appeal, including the recusal argument and challenges to the Royal Court's evidentiary and financial rulings, lacked merit except for one point: the Royal Court erred by focusing on the equity in a single property rather than the applicant's overall net asset position when ordering the lump sum payment. The Court of Appeal found this error material and, rather than remit the matter, decided to determine the appropriate order itself.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal granted in part; original lump sum order set aside and matter determined by Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Original order of lump sum payment of £37,073 by applicant to respondent set aside.
  • Court of Appeal to determine appropriate financial order based on correct net asset assessment.