[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 >> Peters v Peters [2011] EWCA Civ 1563 (18 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1563.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Civ 1563

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM EASTBOURNE COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE KEITH HOLLIS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		18 November 2011

Lord Justice Thorpe:

1. Mr Raymond Peters applies for permission to appeal the order and judgment of HHJ Hollis which dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Peters against the prior judgment and order of DJ Robinson. This all comes from the south coast, and the issue is a narrow one in that the function of the district judge was to decide a preliminary issue within ancillary relief proceedings.
2. The core proceedings are between Mr Peters and his wife who is originally from Russia. The marriage was celebrated in 1999 and broke down a decade later. The preliminary issue was a simple and not unfamiliar one. Was a portfolio, worth approximately £225,000, beneficially owned by Mr Peters, as contended for by his wife, or did his sister, Sylvia, have a substantial beneficial interest in the fund? The financial dealings that the district judge had to investigate were sophisticated and quite complex, but in the end he reached clear conclusions and made clear findings of fact. So the appeal to the circuit judge -- which Mr Peters brought as a matter of right -- faced the usual problem that unless the district judge could be demonstrated to have erred in law or otherwise arrived at an unsafe conclusion, his findings of fact stood, because it was his function to find the facts. The function of the circuit judge is limited to ordinary principles of appellate review. Mr Peters was not entitled to a re-hearing in front of the circuit judge, therefore it is perhaps not surprising that Mr Peters failed in his appeal.
3. Mr Peters has a sincere conviction that the conclusions reached in the county court are simply wrong on the facts and that this is a gross injustice to him and, more particularly, to his sister. He has presented his application this morning very attractively and very skilfully, but, as I said at the outset, his obstacle is section 55 which precludes a second appeal unless some important point of practice or principle is demonstrated or there is some other compelling reason. Quite simply there is absolutely none in prospect. Mr Peters cannot satisfy that very high test. It is very exceptional for this court to grant permission for a second appeal. I further observe that this is only a ruling on a preliminary point. What ultimately is going to matter is the discretionary adjudication on the wife's ancillary relief claims. Mr Peters informs me that two days are provisionally set aside for the trial and that a date will be allocated once this application is disposed of.
4. Mr Peters is upset at the restraints imposed by the freezing order but, as I have observed, the freezing order is only an interlocutory provision and Mr Peters' best strategy, I am in no doubt, is to bring the case on for final hearing as soon as possible so that he will know where he stands and will free himself of the restraints of the freezing order. For all those reasons this application is refused.

Order: Application refused.