Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

14 OCT 2016

Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009

Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009

(Court of Appeal, Elias, Kitchin, King LJJ, 14 October 2016)

Financial remedies – Civil partnership – Non-disclosure – Consent order – Application set aside summarily dismissed

The woman’s appeal from a decision refusing permission to appeal a consent order on the basis of non-disclosure was allowed.

The two women were in a same-sex relationship for 18 years and a civil partnership for just under one year of that period. During the relationship one of the women, now deceased, was the breadwinner and financed the luxurious lifestyle which the couple enjoyed.

Following their separation the deceased made a financial offer to the other woman but it was refused. Maintenance pending suit of £1,250 pm was awarded but no provision was made for legal fees. An agreement was reached that the deceased would pay a lump sum of £162,000 and periodical payments of £18,050pa for 2 years. The woman was acting in person and accepted that she could seek independent legal advice. The deceased declared her gross income as £55,312 pa and net assets of £766,000 with a pension fund of £285,000. A consent order was made which included the provision that after the termination of the periodical payments in the event of the deceased’s death, no claim would be made of her estate.

Subsequently the deceased signed off company accounts showing shareholder funds of £5.5m and her annual income of £150,000. She died in 2013.

The woman applied to set aside the consent order on the basis of material non-disclosure. The judge at first instance dealing with the matter at an abbreviated hearing found that the application was doomed to failure and that the non-disclosure had not been material.

The appeal was allowed and the case would be remitted for reconsideration. The decision below could properly be characterised as a summary judgment for which the judge had no jurisdiction under the rules. He had also been wrong not to make findings of fact as to the alleged non-disclosure. Further he failed to address the issue of materiality against a finding of whether the non-disclosure was deliberate or inadvertent. He had peremptorily dismissed any question of the non-disclosure being material on the basis that the woman had agreed to the order knowing that there had been non-disclosure.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1009

Case No: B4/2014/2552

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Chester Civil and Family Justice Centre
His Honour Judge Barnett

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: 14/10/2016

Before:

LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
and
LADY JUSTICE KING

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

Helen Louise Roocroft
Appellant

- and -

Moya Margaret Ball 
(Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol Ann Ainscow (Dec’d))
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sally Harrison QC and Samantha Hillas (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Appellant
Richard Todd QC and Charles Eastwood (instructed by Glaisyers Solicitors) for the Respondent

Hearing date : 5 July 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009


Financial Remedies Handbook

Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook this is the first resort for thousands of...

More Info from £79.00
Available in Family Law Online
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts

Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts

"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer" Solicitors Journal

Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters