Grey v Grey

Judgment

LORD JUSTICE THORPE:

The Background

The parties to this appeal are in their mid-thirties. They come from Dublin where they became close in their school days. They became engaged in 1996 and in 1997 moved to London to enable the husband to pursue his career in the City. They married first in 1998 in Spain, but the marriage was invalid since it had not been properly registered. Their only child, a daughter, was born on 16 th September 2001. A valid marriage was celebrated in a London register office on 18 th September 2003. The parties separated in April 2005. The husband moved from the final matrimonial home in St John’s Wood to a nearby flat. The wife returned to Dublin with their daughter.

Hard fought ancillary relief proceedings ensued, during the course of which neither party paid much attention to the rule that requires full, frank and clear disclosure. The contest culminated in a trial before Singer J commencing on 4 th February 2008. As a result of serious illness, Singer J was unable to hand down his written judgment until March 2009.

The value of the family assets had fallen between trial and judgment, at which stage there was approximately £3 million. That was split equally between the parties with the exception of some pension rights which had been acquired by the husband post separation. In broad terms, the wife received the house which had been bought for her and their daughter in Dublin, a lump sum of about £320,000, to which about £135,000 was added in lieu of back-dated periodical payments. Finally the wife received a share of the husband’s pension rights worth some £45,000.

Singer J set the wife’s periodical payments at an annual rate of £135,000 from November 2006 until judgment. The rate thereafter he set at £125,000 per annum. It was agreed that periodical payments for their daughter should be at the rate of £15,000 per annum.

The Issue of the Appeal

Only the judge’s orders for periodical payments were challenged by the husband. He sought permission to appeal which was effectively granted on the papers. The basis of the husband’s challenge has a very narrow focus. Its only foundation is the wife’s relationship between November 2006 and the trial with Mr Thompson, a Dublin resident separated from his wife.

Mr Martin Pointer QC for the husband advanced two basic submissions:

That the judge had failed to make proper findings of fact regarding the relationship between the wife and Mr Thompson.

That the judge misdirected h