Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 28, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Judgment
ASSOUN v ASSOUN [No 2]
On 25 January 2017 the Court was listed to hand down judgment in the appeal by Mr Assoun (‘the husband’) against the making of a Hadkinson order by His Honour Judge Brasse on 16 November 2015. That appeal has now been dismissed and the judgment in it is simultaneously published with this decision and is reported as Assoun v Assoun (No 1) (Hadkinson Application) [2017] EWCA Civ 21 . The background circumstances and issues are described in that judgment which is incorporated into these reasons.
After the judgment had been circulated but before the date on which it was to be handed down, the husband sought permission to re-open the appeal before judgment was entered, to amend his grounds of appeal and to rely upon further evidence. The wife opposed that application and we gave directions adjourning the substantive appeal and granting permission to the parties to file further written submissions on the basis of a process that would have led either to a further hearing on the adjourned appeal if the husband had been successful in his application or to an oral hearing of his application if the husband had satisfied the court that there was an arguable case in respect of one or more of the bases for the same. The husband’s position was formalised by an application notice dated 8 February 2017.
In the event, for the reasons which follow, the court is not satisfied that there is any basis for the husband’s application. It is accordingly dismissed with the consequence that there is no necessity for a further hearing in the substantive appeal or in respect of the husband’s application.
The husband in his written submissions sought to demonstrate the following:
That the court was relying on mistaken factual material in coming to its conclusions;
That the court’s analysis of the Hadkinson principles in the context of the facts would be erroneous if based upon mistakes as to fact;
That the court’s analysis of the husband’s financial disclosure would likewise be wrong with the consequence that its conclusions as to the procedural regularity of the process and its own procedural integrity would be flawed;
That the court’s construction of the intention and/or effect of the order of Gloster LJ of 19 May 2016 was wrong;
That there was a breach of natural justice.
It should be recollected that in Assoun (No 1) the court stated (at [11]) that it is not satisfied that its own conditions imposed upon the grant of permission to app
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal decision in Assoun v Assoun (No 2) addresses Mr Assoun’s application to re-open his appeal against His Honour Judge Brasse’s Hadkinson order of 16 November 2015, after a draft appellate judgment had been circulated but before hand-down. The husband sought to amend grounds and introduce further evidence, arguing mistaken factual premises, erroneous application of Hadkinson principles, misinterpretation of Gloster LJ’s 19 May 2016 order, and breach of natural justice. The wife opposed, and the court adjourned the substantive appeal to permit written submissions. Central to the dispute was allocation of two payments totalling $324,000 between spousal maintenance and costs under a legal services order; the Texas court had settled this allocation for its enforcement, adverse to the husband, which he disclosed only after the appeal. The Court found no mistake of fact, no new material, and adequate scrutiny of the husband’s financial disclosure, concluding Judge Brasse was not wrong and refusing to re-open the appeal.