[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 >> Lisinge v Lisinge [2001] EWCA Civ 1439 (2 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1439.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1439

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Compston)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 2nd October 2001

1. L0RD JUSTICE THORPE: I think that this is a sadly hopeless application for permission to appeal an order of 5th October 2000 made by His Honour Judge Compston in the Wandsworth County Court. It is unnecessary to take up the history prior to 28th September 2000 when the wife obtained an order in the absence of the husband, preventing him from violence or harassment until return on 5th October. That was an order made without the husband's attendance. The order of 5th October was again made without his attendance. However, the recital to the order is quite specific. The judge recites:

"Upon the court being satisfied that [the husband] has been served with the order of 28th September and further being satisfied that [the husband] has accommodation available".

2. The judge proceeded to make an order giving the wife the sole occupation of the matrimonial home, excluding the husband and continuing the injunctions against violence and harassment. However, the order provided a liberty to the husband to apply on notice within a number of days. That liberty to apply was not exercised, either within the time set by the court or subsequently.
3. The next proceeding in the county court was the wife's application for the transfer of the tenancy to her. That was supported by an affidavit of 14th March 2001. There was a direction order made by the district judge on 2nd April, and that required the husband to file his affidavit in answer. That he did on 23rd April. There was then a hearing on 14th May. The order of 14th May transferred the tenancy of the former matrimonial home to the wife, and the recital to that order makes it clear that the husband was before the judge in person. There were also written submissions which he made to the judge on 14th May, in which he points out that his belongings remain at the house and that there was no emergency or immediate threat that called for a decision that day, and the husband asks the court to have regard to equity.
4. The next happening after that seemingly final proceeding was an application to this court for permission, received on 24th May. The permission sought was not to appeal the transferring of the tenancy made 10 days earlier but it was an application to appeal the order made by Judge Compston on 5th October. I appreciate that the husband is a litigant in person. Obviously on 24th May he had the right to apply for permission to appeal the order of 14th May because he was still within time. But an application for permission to appeal the order of 5th October was manifestly hopeless. First of all, it was an order which, on its face, gave a liberty to apply in the court of trial. Secondly, the application was some seven and a half months after the event and therefore some seven months out of time. The husband has received assistance from the Citizens Advice Bureau who put this bundle together with him. Obviously they have done all they can on his behalf, but the reality is that this is a hopeless application. I have no alternative but to dismiss it.
Order: Application dismissed