*sm*In the High Court of Justice- Family Division- FD10D02707*em*
This is the third time an application has been made to set aside or appeal an order made in these
financial remedy proceedings which follow the breakdown after 35 years of the marriage of JP (Wife)
and NP (Husband). The total assets available for distribution are £42,000.
Mrs. Justice Eleanor King DBE held: “In my judgment it is apparent from the wording used by DDJ Cornwell that he was giving an indication of outcome by way of a judgment with the order to be made at a later date pursuant to FPR 29.15 the date being the granting of decree nisi. In accordance with that indication, an order was made after and not before decree nisi. It follows that I allow the wife's appeal as I find that the Deputy District Judge did not err in law having had at all times the jurisdiction to hear the case, give a judgment and provide for the consequential order to be made after decree nisi.”
“Costs must follow the event in this case and I make an order that the husband pays the wife's costs of the appeal here and below to be assessed if not agreed. It is most unfortunate that the husband did not maintain the pragmatic view he took earlier in the proceedings that is to say that whilst he did not
accept that the court should have made the financial remedy order, the outcome was one which he did not seek to disturb.
In deciding to pursue the application to set aside the substantive order, having succeeded in setting aside the costs order, the husband unfortunately seemed, as he danced on a
jurisdictional pin head, to lose sight of the fact that the outcome was still right. The jurisdictional argument has been a luxury which this family, of all families, simply could not afford even if, as was indicated to me at the start of the hearing, the litigation was by then driven entirely by considerations of costs.”