Family Law Hub

Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1

Judgment, published: 29/11/1954

Items referring to this

  • Application by a former husband to set aside a consent order on the basis that, at the time of the agreement, his former wife failed to make full and frank disclosure in relation to a company of which she was both a director and shareholder. It was his case that the non-disclosure upon which he relies was a material factor in that he entered into the agreement to compromise his financial claims arising in the divorce proceedings on the basis of incomplete (and, on his case, misleading) information. Cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil considered. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • Appeal against an order made under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court which directed that DNA extracted from a sample provided by the deceased should be tested against a bodily sample to be taken from the Respondent in order to establish whether the deceased was or was not the Respondent's biological father. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 08/02/2018, free
  • Mother's appeal against an order which ordered the children to live in the UK with the father and not in Australia with the mother was dismissed. Judgment, 20/10/2017, free
  • James Pullen of 29 Bedford Row reviews two of the key cases published in the last month, including the Supreme Court decision in Wyatt v Vince. This is the first in a series of regular monthly reviews from the contributors at 29 Bedford Row. Article, 13/03/2015, free
  • Financial remedy proceedings had concluded in 2004 with the wife agreeing to a clean break despite her suspicions that the husband had not made a full disclosure of his assets. In 2007 the husband was found guilty of money laundering on a huge scale and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. During the criminal trial the wife learnt that non-disclosure had indeed occurred and applied to have the 2004 order set aside. Mr Justice Moylan, at first instance, did set aside one paragraph of the order, saying that he was satisfied that the husband had failed to give full and frank disclosure of his true financial circumstances during the course of the substantive ancillary relief proceedings, and that his failure was of sufficient materiality to justify granting the wife's application for a rehearing of her claim for financial relief. He was also satisfied that the principles of Ladd v Marshall were established in this case. The husband appealed on the bases that included: 1) A judge at first instance has no jurisdiction to set aside an order granting substantive financial relief made by another judge of equivalent status at first instance; 2) In any event, the judge, sitting at first instance, had no jurisdiction to proceed (as he purported to do) on the basis of the principles set out in Ladd v Marshall (which authority sets out principles upon which an appellate court may admit fresh evidence); 3) If the judge did have jurisdiction to set aside the original order on the basis of material non-disclosure, he could only properly exercise that jurisdiction once it had been proved that material non-disclosure had occurred. The appeal was allowed. Judgment, 13/03/2014, free
  • Case where financial remedy proceedings had concluded in 2004 with the wife agreeing to a clean break despite her suspicions that the husband had not made a full disclosure of his assets. Case note, 28/04/2014, free
  • Wife believed that the husband had not provided full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances but compromised her claims in a consent order despite this in order to achieve finality. Consent order was set aside by Moylan J because of material non-disclosure. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on grounds of the inadmissibility of the evidence on which he had relied. The Supreme Court allowed the wife's appeal, saying that even if he had referred only to the evidence admissible before him, Moylan J would still properly have found the husband to have been guilty of material non-disclosure; that his order should therefore be reinstated; and that the wife’s claim for further capital provision should therefore proceed before him. Judgment, 14/10/2015, free
  • Claimant's appeal against the provision made to her by order of the District Judge under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The claimant's mother, who was estranged from her daughter, died and left her estate to three charities. The District Judge concluded that it was an "unreasonable result" that no provision at all was made for the claimant in circumstances where she was in some financial need and awarded her £50,000. The claimant appealed the sum but she lost, the judge saying that the District Judge was not manifestly wrong, or even wrong, in taking the view that notwithstanding that the claimant and her husband and family lived in straightened circumstances, the fact they had done so for so many years did not justify an award which improved their circumstances. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • Case note, 04/12/2009, members only
  • Case note, 23/06/2010, members only
  • The Court of Appeal refused the mother (“M”) permission to appeal an earlier decision to refuse to admit expert evidence obtained by M without the court’s permission and without notice to the other parties. M's actions were a clear breach of s.13 Children and Families Act 2014. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Judgment, 27/10/2010, free
  • Appeal against a decision refusing to set aside a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the dissolution of the appellant's civil partnership with her partner who has since died. The basis of the application to set aside the consent order (which was made after the death of the respondent) was that the deceased had been guilty of material non-disclosure in the financial remedy proceedings. The judge dismissed the appellant's application, which he regarded as being "without merit", and "doomed to failure", saying that allowing the case to proceed would be contrary to the court's overriding objective and his (the judge's) duty actively to case manage an application. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for directions before a High Court judge. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
  • In brief: Following the making of an order returning the child to Spain from England, the mother’s (“M”) mental health rapidly deteriorated. She successfully applied to the High Court to have the order set aside and a re-hearing listed following a psychiatric assessment. The Court of Appeal upheld the set aside, concluding that the High Court has the power under the inherent jurisdiction to review and set aside 1980 Hague Convention final orders. The power can be used where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances which undermines the basis on which the original order was made. Here the original return order had been made where the court found that M had not made out her Article 13(b) defence which included M’s claims that there were grave risks to her mental health. Judgment, 16/08/2018, free

Published: 29/11/1954

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item