Grounds of Appeal
Grounds of Appeal
There are two residual grounds of appeal which are now before this court:
[Ground 12] The learned judge wrongly dismissed the wife’s application insofar as it related to ‘maintenance’ (i.e., her reasonable needs) given that:
the learned judge misinterpreted and misapplied section 16(3) of the 1984 Act; and/or
even if (emphasis in the original) his interpretation of section 16(3) was correct, the learned judge was wrong to conclude that the factors in section 16(2) that did not relate to the wife’s connection supported the setting aside or rejection of leave (which was Ground 12 of the original grounds) (‘Ground 12’);
[Ground 13]: The learned judge:
in deciding not to re-grant leave was wrongly influenced by his findings (which were erroneous, unfair and/or unnecessary) that he had been materially misled; and
was in any event wrong not to re-grant leave (which was Ground 13 of the original grounds) (‘Ground 13’).
In their written and oral submissions, counsel sensibly addressed Ground 13 prior to Ground 12. I propose to deal with the appeal in the same order.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Summary of the legal principles discussed in this appeal
- Background facts
- Application to adduce fresh evidence
- The statutory scheme as at November 2019
- Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13
- Judgment of Cohen J: November 2019: (Potanina (FD2))
- Judgment: Court of Appeal: May 2021: Potanina (CA1)
- Judgment: Supreme Court: January 2024: Potanina (SC)
- Grounds of Appeal
- The arguments on this appeal
- The test for leave under section 13 of the 1984 Act
- Ground of Appeal [13]: Discussion
- Ground of Appeal [12]: Discussion
- Conclusions
![CA-2024-001698 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1136](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)