Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
May 18, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Judgment Approved
Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President:
The Respondent wife makes application for payment-out of £30,000 that was ordered to be paid into court by Gloster and Macur LJJ on 14 July 2016. The basis for the application for payment-out to the wife is that she is still owed more than that sum by the Respondent Husband and the husband lost his appeal against the Hadkinson order to which the £30,000 payment relates.
The husband opposes the payment-out on the basis that a) the purpose behind the direction was to provide legal representation which was provided pro bono rather than to fund any indebtedness and b) in any event, the wife has not been frank in her approach to this and other courts about the outstanding debt. The husband further submits that he should have the right to prioritise repayment of his debts to best serve his own interests which would include, for example, purging his contempt so that he might regain access to the court.
My Lord, Beatson LJ and I have decided to determine the application on the written evidence and submissions provided by the parties. The submissions are based in well rehearsed arguments already made by the parties during the oral contested appeal hearing and the subsequent written application to re-open the same. It would be disproportionate to provide an opportunity for a further oral hearing thereby increasing the costs and indebtedness that exists in order to hear the same arguments again.
This application was foreshadowed in the court’s first judgment; Assoun [2017] EWCA 21 at [11] and [40]. In that judgment the court referred expressly to the purpose originally intended by Gloster LJ at [6] and by Gloster LJ and Macur LJ at [9]. The plain meaning of the words used by Gloster LJ in adjourning the permission to appeal hearing to a two judge court on 19 May 2016 was that the payment into court was to reflect a significant part of the debt owed by the husband to the wife. I acknowledge that the order made on 14 July 2016 (after a hearing on 13 July 2016) described the payment as being “security for the Respondent’s costs of this appeal”, but there was nothing then said by the court to contradict the intention originally expressed. I also acknowledge that the wife does not ask for payment-out to meet her costs because she has been represented pro bono .
In my judgment those facts do not undermine the bases upon which the court permitted the husband to proceed with his appeal which were that he f
AI Generated Summary
In this post-appeal application arising in Assoun, Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President, considers whether £30,000 previously paid into court should be released to the Respondent wife. Gloster and Macur LJJ had directed the payment on 14 July 2016 during appellate proceedings, describing it as security for costs, but their words and the court’s first judgment indicated the payment was intended to reflect a significant part of the debt owed by the Respondent husband to the wife. The husband opposed release, arguing the sum was to fund legal representation (which the wife received pro bono), questioning the wife’s frankness, and contending he could prioritise debts to purge contempt and regain access to court. The court rejects these objections, holds the payment-in also served to reduce the husband’s indebtedness if his appeal failed, refuses to admit new materials or to re-open issues already decided, and orders payment-out of the £30,000 plus accrued interest.