England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Treadgold-Lowe v Lowe [2002] EWCA Civ 1308 (24 July 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1308.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1308

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1308
		B1/2001/2466

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE READING COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Catlin)

The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
Wednesday 24th July, 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE THORPE
____________________

	RACHEL LORRAINE TREADGOLD-LOWE	Applicant
	-v-
	DAVID LAWRENCE LOWE	Respondent

____________________

(Computer-aided transcript of the Palantype Notes
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7404 1400
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

THE APPLICANT appeared on her own behalf
THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mrs Treadgold-Lowe asks for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Catlin on 26th October 2001 in the Reading County Court. The proceedings are in ancillary relief following the desolution of a marriage between the parties, the decree nisi being pronounced in 1998. The District Judge settled the ancillary relief outcome in February 2000, but Mrs Treadgold-Lowe then successfully appealed to His Honour Judge Catlin. At the time the parties had nearly £1 million between them. Roughly half that was represented by the final matrimonial home, 42 Oatlands Chase. There was then another property at Thames Close, in this jurisdiction, a property in Australia and some other assets.

The judge's order, in allowing the appeal, was that the wife should receive a lump sum of £400,000 upon transfer by her of her share in the jointly owned properties. The judge also ordered that she should receive periodical payments at the rate of £20,000 a year.

The order was tested by an application to appeal, which was refused in this court ultimately at the end of the year 2000. That, however, did not settle the issues between the parties, since the lump sum has never been paid. However, I do not take the husband to be in default, since the transfer of the jointly owned properties has not been achieved either. Following other proceedings in the County Court, His Honour Judge Bishop, on 14th May 2001, imposed an embargo on further applications by Mrs Treadgold-Lowe without permission of the court.

It was in those circumstances that Judge Catlin, on 26th October, considered and refused an application by Mrs Treadgold-Lowe to vary the order of 10th August. Of course in so far as the order provided for periodical payments, it was essentially variable. In so far as it provided for a division of capital between the parties, it was essentially not open to variation, absent some extraordinary circumstance which seems not to be asserted by either party.

So since then there have been further proceedings in the County Court. I do not pretend to have a full grasp of them. Mrs Treadgold-Lowe filed her application for permission here on 13th November 2001, and I am not clear as to why it only comes into court in this month of July. But papers have been lodged which show that Judge Catlin has been trying to achieve the implementation of the order of August 2000 by bringing about the transfer of the jointly owned properties. I can fully understand Mrs Treadgold-Lowe's reluctance to co-operate in the implementation of the order. She has considered throughout the welfare of her youngest son, Lawrence, who, although not a child within the definition of the law, is still obviously immature. He is 19 years of age. He apparently started his university career in September 2001, but then dropped out.

Another reason why Mrs Treadgold-Lowe may have been reluctant to collaborate in the implementation of the order is that she has been very ill herself. In her skeleton argument she informs me that she was diagnosed with cancer in 1996 and since then she has been engaged in a permanent battle for survival. She has apparently been in hospital both last month and this.

So any discretionary orders need to recognise that dimension. But I have carefully considered the judgment of the judge given on 26th October. He explains fully why he reached the discretionary conclusion that he should not grant permission to Mrs Treadgold-Lowe. I can see no possible ground for criticising that discretionary balance, and in any event I have to look to the reality that the case has moved on significantly since then. The principle of finality in ancillary relief litigation is an important principle. Any discretionary balance has equally to have regard to the position of the other party. Although Mr Lowe is not before the court today, it would not be hard to envisage a plea from him that he should see an end of this prolonged litigation.

Since I can see no error in the judgment of Judge Catlin, it follows inevitably that this application for permission must be refused.

ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused.

(Order not part of approved judgment)

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010