Wight v Wight
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Zacca, P., Taylor and Forte, JJ.A.) |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 08 December 2006 |
(Zacca, P., Taylor and Forte, JJ.A.)
N. Mostyn, Q.C., M.J. Bradley and D. McGrath for the appellant;
A.J. Jones, Q.C. and Z.M. Merren-Chin for the respondent.
Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.6(f)(iii): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at para. 5.
Court of Appeal Rules (2004 Revision), r.12(6)(y):
‘(6) [T]he following judgments and orders shall be treated as interlocutory-
. . .
(y) an order for or relating to ancillary relief in matrimonial proceeding, including a property adjustment order, an order for the payment of a lump sum and any other order making or relating to financial provisions whether of a capital or income nature …’
Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.24: The relevant terms of this section are set out at para. 6.
s.25: The relevant terms of this section are set out at para. 6.
Family Law-financial provision-appeals-appeal to Court of Appeal as of right under Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.24 against interlocutory order for financial provision, despite provision in Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.6(f) that leave required for appeal from interlocutory order
The appellant applied to the Grand Court for financial provision in divorce proceedings.
The Grand Court made an order for financial provision in proceedings reported at 2006 CILR 1. The appellant appealed against the order without seeking leave from either the Grand Court or the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether her appeal against the ancillary order could properly be brought under the Matrimonial Causes Law without leave, or if it was necessary to seek leave and bring the appeal under the Court of Appeal Law.
The appellant submitted that under the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.24, parties to a suit brought under that Law were entitled to appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal against any decree or order made in the suit, and she did not therefore need leave.
The respondent submitted in reply that the appellant required leave to appeal, since the Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.6(f)(iii) provided that no appeal lay from an interlocutory order of the Grand Court in a matrimonial cause without the leave of the Grand Court or Court of Appeal except in the case of a decree nisi, and the Court of
Appeal Rules, r.12(6)(y) further provided that an order for ancillary relief in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dewitt v Dewitt
...Fam. Law 163, applied. (2) Mosey v. Mosey, [1956] P. 26; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 1118; [1955] 2 All E.R. 391, distinguished. (3) Wight v. Wight, 2006 CILR 416, dicta of Taylor J.A. applied. Legislation construed: Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.10(1): The relevant terms of this sub-sectio......
-
F v F
...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. Legislation construed: Court of Appeal Law (2006 Revision), s.5: ‘Subject to this Law, the Court shall have jur......
-
B-H v H
...W.L.R. 1571; [2001] 1 All E.R. 1; [2000] 2 FLR 981; [2000] 3 F.C.R. 555, applied. (10) Wight v. Wight, 2006 CILR 1; further proceedings, 2006 CILR 416; on appeal, C.A., November 30th, 2007, unreported, applied. Legislation construed: Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision), s.19: The relevan......
-
DL v KL
...given by Chadwick P. In W v W [ 2009 CILR 225] the President reiterated the importance of the principles set out in (i) Wight v Wight [ 2006 CILR 416] (“ Wight”), (ii) White v White [2001] 1 A.C. 596 (“ White”) and (iii) Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186, [2006] 2 AC ......