[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 >> Bhardwaj v Bhardwaj [2001] EWCA Civ 72 (19 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/72.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 72

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 19th January 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is Mr. Bhardwaj's application for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Connor in the Watford County Court on 21st August. That judgment was on an appeal brought by Mr Bhardwaj against a maintenance pending suit adjudication made by District Judge Davies in the same court on 13th April 2000.
2. This is a family of some substance. Mr. Bhardwaj is a professional man. The District Judge accepted undertakings and made orders, the sum total of which obliged Mr Bhardwaj to provide approximately £3,600 per month for the support of his wife and three children, that sum to be reduced by such sum as might be determined on any future assessment by the Agency. Judge Connor dealt with the appeal impeccably. He laid stress on the fact that the order appealed was only a pending suit order. He stressed the fact that the parties had eventually managed to agree a basis for dissolving the marriage and a decree nisi was to be expected within the next three months. He declined to interfere with the District Judge's order pointing out that if, on investigation, it was proved to be in any way erroneous, then the error could be corrected by giving credit to the husband on the orders made by way of final division of capital. So this application for permission is on any view misconceived and hopeless, for not only is it quite contrary to established practice to admit to this court by way of appeal any order that was purely pending suit, but beyond that, even if it had not been a pending suit order, it would be caught by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which prohibits this court entertaining second tier appeals unless the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason. That test is not satisfied in this case and this application is accordingly dismissed.
Order: Application dismissed.