A (Children), Re

Lord Justice Wall:

This is an application by JK, formerly Mrs A, for permission to appeal against an order made by HHJ Hughes QC as long ago as 2 May 2008. The Appellant’s Notice was received in this court on 3 April 2009 and the matter came before me without notice to the respondent husband last week. Due partly to pressure of time and also to the obvious complexity of the case, I thought it sensible to have the matter listed inter partes , not least because it seemed at the time that Mrs K was in danger of being evicted from the home in which she was living, something which we understand today has now in fact taken place.

It is however, necessary, I think, to emphasise that this court is only concerned with the application for permission to appeal against the order made by Judge Hughes on 2 May 2008 and, in particular, the judge’s refusal to set aside the transfer of the property in which Mrs A was living in Whitecliff, Horseshoe Ridge, Weybridge in Surrey.

Mrs A, who is in person today and was in person last week and indeed appeared in person before the judge, has produced a detailed skeleton argument, a document which she has expanded today with a further document to which other documents are annexed, all of which, of course, my Lord and I have read.

It is, I think, immediately apparent that Mrs K is very substantially out of time for appealing against the order, and in her skeleton argument she seeks to explain how that has come about. She explains that she is a litigant in person; that she has therefore an imperfect knowledge of the law and procedure. She has told us through an interpreter today that she did not appreciate the likely consequences of her failure to file her Appellant’s Notice in time. She says she had no money; could not afford legal advice; was advised that the case was complex and that she needed a solicitor; and accordingly, we should in all the circumstances extend her time.

She says she has been to the Citizens Advice Bureau at least twice and they have told her that she needed legal advice. Speaking for myself, I have to say that I do not think that the explanation she has put forward comes anywhere near satisfying the stringent provisions laid down by this court, in particular in relation to the question of extension of time. I am fortified in that conclusion by the fact that there has been very substantial litigation between the parties on a number of fronts, and Mrs K has permission to apply to the court under Part III o