Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Marano v Marano [2010] EWCA Civ 76 (14 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/76.html
Cite as: [2010] EWCA Civ 76
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE ELEANOR KING)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WALL
and
LORD JUSTICE RIMER
____________________
| MARANO |
Applicant |
|
| - and - |
||
MARANO |
Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Marks QC and Mr Clarke (instructed by Withers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- The application advanced by Mr Mostyn QC is for the admission of fresh evidence in the form of a letter from a Californian lawyer and a report from a London commercial property expert. These documents are late arising, long after the grant of permission to appeal in this case, and they are persuasively challenged by Mr Marks QC on the ground that the point as to Californian law is of doubtful value, was not run in the court below, and is in any event of no direct application here given that his client is not fundamentally Californian. We accept those submissions.
- In relation to Mr Wolfenden's report, it is vulnerable to all the argument addressed by Mr Marks, namely that it has not been tested and it would accordingly be dangerous for this appellate court to found itself in any way on such evidence, particularly given the fact that it has come at such a late stage in the development of the appeal. At best, it would do no more than establish a snap shot valuation at January 2010 for that which was before the judge in March last. It does not seem to me that it is a necessary foundation for any of Mr Mostyn's arguments, nor does it seem to me that to have refused the application or to remit it would impact in any way on the case that he intends to advance.
- So as a matter of principle, I conclude that we should refuse the application.
- I agree.
- I agree also.
Lord Justice Thorpe:
Lord Justice Wall:
Lord Justice Rimer:
Order: Application refused.