F v F
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Henderson, J.) |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2010 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 25 May 2010 |
(Henderson, J.)
N. Meeson, Q.C. for the applicant/husband;
D.T. McGrath for the respondent/wife.
(1) Piglowska v. Piglowski, [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1360; [1999] 3 All E.R. 632; [1999] 2 FLR 763; [1999] 2 F.C.R. 481, applied.
(2) Telesystem Intl. Wireless Inc. v. CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners L.P., 2001 CILR N[21], referred to.
(3) Wight v. Wight, 2006 CILR 416, dicta of Taylor J.A. applied.
Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.5:
‘Subject to this Law, the Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment of the Grand Court given or made in civil proceedings, or to order a new trial if the Court thinks fit, and, for all purposes of and incidental to the hearing and determination of any such appeal and the amendment, execution and enforcement of any judgment made thereon, the Court shall, subject as aforesaid, have all the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the Grand Court:
Provided that no judgment of the Grand Court shall be altered or reversed in any case in which the Court is satisfied that the effect of the judgment is to do substantial justice between the parties.’
Court of Appeal Rules (2004 Revision), r.12(6)(y): The relevant terms of this sub-rule are set out at para. 6.
Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.24: The relevant terms of this section are set out at para. 5.
Family Law-financial provision-appeals-appeal against order ancillary to divorce lies under Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.24 and not Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.5-notice of appeal to be lodged within 21 days, with no provision for extension of time
Family Law-financial provision-appeals-appeal against variation order made after divorce lies under Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.5-requires leave as order interlocutory under Court of Appeal Rules (2004 Revision), r.12(6)(y)-leave only granted if real prospect of success, i.e. award outside reasonable range-particularly wide judicial discretion in calculation of child support
The respondent wife applied for ancillary relief in divorce proceedings.
In divorce proceedings, the Grand Court (Henderson, J.) ordered that the husband pay spousal support to the wife for an indefinite period, the quantum being reduced since he had undertaken to pay all of their daughter”s educational expenses. The daughter subsequently decided not to pursue higher education and, on the basis that the husband no longer had to fund it, the wife applied to increase the award for spousal support. The husband cross-applied to terminate that support, contending that a clean break was appropriate.
The Grand Court (Henderson, J.) made an order increasing the spousal support. The court rejected the husband”s application, holding that a clean break was not appropriate.
The husband sought leave to appeal against the order to pay spousal support and also the order increasing the award, submitting that (a) they were wrong in principle and quantum, and no need for them had been established; and (b) s.5 of the Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision) provided that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from any judgment of the Grand Court.
The wife submitted in reply that (a) leave to appeal could not be granted in respect of the order to pay spousal support since it was out of time under the applicable provision, which was s.24 of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision); and (b) leave to appeal against the order increasing the award should not be granted as the increased award was reasonable, and the appeal therefore had no real prospect of success.
Held, refusing leave to appeal:
(1) The husband would not be granted leave to appeal against the order to pay spousal support. The order was ancillary to a divorce decree, and therefore any appeal against it needed to be brought under s.24 of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision)-and not under s.5 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AK v TK
...prospect of success” if the award falls outside the spectrum of award which may be reasonable in the circumstances (see F(R.) and H [2010(1) CILR 524]) 8 Leave to appeal from an interlocutory order will be refused, if (a) the point raised by the appeal is not sufficiently significant to jus......