BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Lockwood v Greenbaum [2022] EWHC 845 (Fam) (13 April 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/845.html Cite as: [2023] 4 WLR 18, [2022] EWHC 845 (Fam) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2023] 4 WLR 18] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Barbara Kay Lockwood |
Appellant |
|
-and- |
||
Adam Raphael Greenbaum |
Respondent |
____________________
Miss Lucy Stone QC (instructed by Kingsley Napley) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 6 April 2022
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
The relevant history
" either or both of the parties to the marriage had, at the date of the application for leave, a beneficial interest in possession in a dwelling-house situated in England or Wales which was at some time during the marriage a matrimonial home of the parties to the marriage."
"In my judgment, for there to be solid ground for a Part III application, the applicant must show a situation where there are substantial connections with England. My core conclusion on the evidential material I have read and the submissions I have heard is that the connections with England are not, in this case, substantial".
The law in relation to appeals
"..outside the band of reasonable decisions that different judges could have come to. In other words, was the exercise of discretion unreasonable? If it cannot be said that it was unreasonable, the appeal will be dismissed."
The law on an application for permission to apply for financial relief pursuant to Part III
(a) the connection which the parties have with England and Wales;
(b) the connection which they have with the country in which the marriage was dissolved;
(c) the connection which they have with any other country outside England and Wales;
(d) any financial benefit which the applicant or a child of the family has received or is likely to have received in consequence of the divorce in New Zealand;
(e) where an order has been made by another country outside England and Wales, the extent to which it has been complied with or is likely to be complied with;
(f) any right which the applicant has or has had to apply for financial relief from the other party under the law of any country outside England and Wales and if she has not done so the reason for that omission;
(g) the availability in England and Wales of any property in respect of which an order under this part of this act could be made;
(h) the extent to which any order made under this act is likely to be enforceable; and
(i) the length of time which has elapsed since the date of the divorce, annulment or legal separation.
"In the present context, the principal object of the filter mechanism is to prevent wholly unmeritorious claims being pursued to oppress or blackmail a former spouse. The threshold is not high, but is higher than 'serious issue to be tried' or 'good arguable case' found in other contexts. It is perhaps best expressed by saying that in this context 'substantial' means 'solid'."
The approach of the Recorder
37. I have already indicated that the Recorder gave a very careful and considered judgment. It is with regret that I have concluded that, in one very important and material aspect, he fell into error. I cannot accept his statement in paragraph [45] of his judgment that "…for there to be solid ground for a Part III application, the application must show a situation where there are substantial connections with England". The correct test is, rather, that set out by Lord Collins in paragraph [33] of Agbaje, namely are there solid grounds for the application. It follows that, because the Recorder applied the wrong test to his exercise of discretion, I am entitled to look at it again. I will now do so.
The application for permission
Costs
Directions
Mr Justice Moor
7 April 2022