Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 25, 2009
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Lord Justice Wall:
Introduction
I would like to begin this judgment by apologising to Mr. Blooman for the delay in producing it. This, I fear is due to a succession of urgent children’s case which occupied my time both up to and after Christmas, coupled with the fact that I felt it essential to re-read all the papers after the hearing. The delay is, nonetheless, excessive, and I am very sorry about it.
I should also add that I have today received information from Mr Blooman that there has been a foreclosure order on the Florida property, and that, pursuant to an order of the American court, the property has been sold for a nominal sum. I say at once that this has not altered the view I have formed of Mr Blooman’s application for permission to appeal, although it may well affect the course of action which he hereafter chooses to adopt.
The application
This is an application by Mr. Larry John Blooman for permission to appeal against orders made by Her Honour Judge Black sitting in the Brighton County Court on 18 March 2008.
I heard oral argument from Mr. Blooman in person on 27 November 2008. However, as that day’s listings had been disrupted by the illness of counsel in an earlier case, Mr. Blooman’s case was delayed, and I thought the fairest course was to reserve judgment, and to provide Mr. Blooman with my decision in writing. This I now do.
The first point I have to decide is whether or not this is a second appeal to which the provisions of section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 apply. As is well known, that section is reads as follows:-
55 Second appeals
(1) Where an appeal is made to a county court or the High Court in relation to any matter, and on hearing the appeal the court makes a decision in relation to that matter, no appeal may be made to the Court of Appeal from that decision unless the Court of Appeal considers that—
(a) the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or
(b) there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
These provisions are reproduced in rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR).
The applications made by Mr. Blooman to Judge Black were in the alternative. He applied to set aside an order for ancillary made by district judge Merrick on 24 March 2006, but in the alternative, he sought permission to appeal against the district judge’s order out of time. Judge Black refused both applications. In these circumstances, it would, in my judgment, be wrong str
AI Generated Summary
Mr Larry John Blooman sought permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal against Her Honour Judge Black’s 18 March 2008 refusal to set aside a March 2006 ancillary relief order and refusal of leave to appeal out of time. The case stems from the Blooman divorce and FDR, at which heads of agreement were reached to resolve finances: sale of their Brighton home, transfer of a Florida property, a lump sum by instalments, and periodical payments. Disputes later centered on household contents and the phrase ‘retain own assets’. Judge Black found no fraud, mistake, material non-disclosure, duress, or qualifying new event; Lord Justice Wall agreed the FDR agreement was binding and properly embodied under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, applied CPR 52.3(6)’s permission test, viewed the foreclosure as not a Barder event due to timing, emphasized the appellate court’s review function, and refused permission. He noted possible alternative remedies, including variation under MCA s31 and potential claims against solicitors, and warned of likely costs if an appeal proceeded.