McHugh v McHugh
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
- LADY JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolved around an appeal on matrimonial finances, primarily on whether the lack of sworn evidence affected the District Judge's order. Despite limited grounds for appeal being granted, Mr. McHugh sought to argue the 'no sworn evidence' point. The Court of Appeal ruled it had no jurisdiction to address this, retaining the limits set by earlier permissions and upheld strict rules of the appeal process.
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE LEWISON: The resolution of the matrimonial finances of Mr and Mrs McHugh was considered by District Judge Nightingale at a final hearing that took place on 10 October 2012. She handed down a judgment on 8 November 2012 and made an order that day. The order recited that it was made "upon hearing the oral evidence of the parties". However, after extensive investigations it turned out that neither party gave evidence on oath.
2. At the hand down of the judgment Mr McHugh applied for permission to appeal, which District Judge Nightingale refused. He then applied to the Circuit Judge for permission to appeal. One of his grounds of appeal was that inadequate time was available for either party to be placed under oath and he had not been able to cross-examine Mrs McHugh under oath. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers but at the renewed oral hearing on 11 September 2013 His Honour Judge Caddick granted permission to appeal limited to two grounds, which he set out in paragraph 1 of his order as follows:
"The husband is permitted to so appeal but limited to the consideration of the grounds (1) that the District Judge's approach to the treatment of the wife's inheritance from her aunt's estate was wrong, both in principle and in refusing adequate disclosure to establish the full amount thereof and (2) that the District Judge should not have ordered an immediate sale of the matrimonial home but should have postponed it and, if so, the terms thereof."
3. In his judgment of 5 November 2013 His Honour Judge Caddick allowed the appeal in part, largely on the ground that Mrs McHugh had deliberately concealed the size of the inheritance from her aunt, leading Judge Caddick to award Mr McHugh a greater proportion of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home than District Judge Nightingale had awarded.
4. Mr McHugh then applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a number of grounds. These grounds included:
"No evidence has been given under oath. Neither party has ever answered any question under oath throughout the duration of all hearings for this financial remedy case".
5. Following investigation, on 8 October 2014 Sir Robin Jacob gave permission to appeal:
"Granted solely in respect of the issue concerning the failure of the District Judge to swear in the witnesses."
6. In the box headed "Information for directions to the parties" he added:
"To save time it may be appropriate for the parties to a