Family Law Hub

Evans v Evans [2012] EWCA Civ 1058

  • Case No: B6/2012/1615

    Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 1058





    Royal Courts of Justice

    Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

    Date: Friday 6th July 2012





    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




    - and -



    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    (DAR Transcript of

    WordWave International Limited

    A Merrill Communications Company

    165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

    Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Mr Charles Howard QC and Mr Richard Castle (instructed by Hughes Fowler Carruthers Limited) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

    Mr Martin Pointer QC and Mr Tim Bishop QC (instructed by Alexiou Fisher Philipps) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    (As Approved by the Court)

    Crown Copyright (c)

    Lord Justice Thorpe:

    1. Mr Howard applies on behalf of the wife for permission to appeal the order of the President of 30 May, by which he directed that the decree nisi in this suit should be made absolute on a date which he fixed for Tuesday last. We heard the case on Tuesday morning, given that pressure point. Mr Howard said that he could demonstrate that if the decree was made absolute before the resolution of his client's ancillary relief application, and the implementation of whatever order emerged, then she would be at risk of sitting on an empty judgment.

    2. Mr Pointer, responding, said that this was all fanciful illusion on the part of the wife; there was no risk; his client was a man of honour, and that if there seemed to be some sort of consequence of divorce in the management of the affairs of Confluence, which is the key company, according to the law of the United States, then it was easily met by some sort of statement or assurance from a legal officer within the company.

    3. That was put in great issue by Mr Howard for the wife, and accordingly we adjourned over until today in the hope that there would be some sensible arrangement negotiated between the highly experienced legal team on each side to ensure that there would in reality be an elimination of the wife's anxieties.

    4. This morning we reassembled with nothing but evidence which has been obtained by the wife from her own American lawyers, who no doubt will be looking at all questions through eyes that reflect their retainer. There is nothing from the other side other than response to this material. What might have made our task easier this morning would have been some concrete proposal from the husband to bring into some sort of stakeholder position a sum equivalent to the wife's award in the tainted trial.

    5. Accordingly, with great reluctance I am persuaded that we have to give permission to appeal. The appeal will be listed on a date to be fixed for a court of three, and I would not give it much time estimate beyond two hours. But I would like to make it plain that it is open to the husband at any time to come with a proposal which would beyond argument demonstrate that the consequence of his proposal would be to eliminate any risk that the wife would be left with an empty judgment at the conclusion of the second trial.

    6. The intervention by grant of permission is for me based on the fresh evidence that was not before the President. It is quite clear from paragraph 79 and 81 that, in considering possible adverse consequences to the wife of making the decree absolute, his focus was entirely on fiscal questions rather than the risk of receiving an empty judgment. All this evidence that we have before us today was not available to the President. It is, I think, properly admissible given the procedural complexities that the wife had been represented on the 9 and 13 May by a different legal team to the team that she has today, with the exception of her junior counsel, Mr Castle, who has been in the case throughout. Only for those reasons I would grant the permission and stay the order made by the President.

    Lord Justice Rimer:

    7. I agree.

    Order: Application granted

Judgment, published: 06/07/2012


Published: 06/07/2012


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item