[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 >> Taylor v Taylor [2001] EWCA Civ 1814 (20 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1814.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1814

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MILTON KEYNES COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Kenny)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 20th November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is a renewed application for permission brought by Mrs Taylor, who is extremely upset by the order made by His Honour Judge Kenny on 27th September 2001 in proceedings which seem to have been lodged in the Watford County Court, although on that day the judge was sitting at Milton Keynes. The order that he made, on the face of it, is a very tough order, requiring Mrs Taylor to vacate the matrimonial home in East Barnet within a period of about 14 days and thereafter not to return during the pendency of the order, which is until 31st January 2002. Both the parties were represented by counsel and Mrs Taylor was in receipt of public funding.
2. Unusually, the application for permission to appeal, together with the applications for extension and stay, was dealt with by me on paper. I say unusually because ordinarily applications for permission brought by litigants in person are directed straight to oral hearing. In my reasons for refusal I pointed out that the unusual order rested upon the judge's clear finding that the father's evidence was credible and that the mother's evidence was not. It also rested upon the recommendations and assessments of the court reporting officer which the judge accepted as impartial and valid.
3. Mrs Taylor has come this morning because she cannot get representation in this court. She has done her best to explain her predicament. Her concerns are that the children are not safe in their father's care, despite the judge's assessment that they would be safe. She also relies upon a recent event, namely the arrival of her brother-in-law and his two children. She particularly objects to this since she asserts that her brother-in-law is a drug addict. Finally, she raises a consideration which was apparently not raised before Judge Kenny, namely that the house is big enough to be divided. This is corroborated by a recent letter received from her solicitors who continue to act for her, seemingly, in the county court proceedings. The letter of 14th November to the court encloses a letter which they wrote on the same date to the husband's solicitors, complaining about his care of the daughter, complaining about the arrival of the brother-in-law and requiring his immediate vacation.
4. I have pointed out to Mrs Taylor that these recent events are matters that may justify a further application in the county court, but they do not justify the grant of permission. I appreciate Mrs Taylor's sense of hopelessness but, nonetheless, it is manifest that solicitors are continuing to act for her and are continuing to tackle her concerns. If there is no satisfactory response to the letter of 14th November, then Mrs Taylor must consider with her solicitors whether to seek variation or further orders in the county court.
5. Lastly, Mrs Taylor has told me that her husband is harassing her. She says that she has evidence of that in calls which she has received on her mobile telephone. Again, that falls into the category of fresh evidence, and it is for her to give instructions to her solicitors to enable them to deal with that aspect within the county court proceedings. There is nothing I can do for Mrs Taylor. Plainly, the provisional refusal of 18th October must be confirmed. The application for permission is dismissed.
Order: Application refused.