FA-2024-000131 - [2025] EWHC 2361 (Fam)

The appellant appealed by an Appellant's Notice which was undated. The application included an application for permission to appeal the order of HHJ Oliver made on 26 April 2024. The application was made out of time, but the appellant asserted he had not received the order of HHJ Oliver until 13 May 2024.

On 31 May 2024 the Appeal Notice came before me for consideration on the papers. On that occasion, I granted the appellant’s application for permission to appeal out of time. In addition, I gave directions for the provision of transcripts of the hearings and the filing of skeleton arguments after their receipt. I granted a stay of the order of HHJ Oliver limited to paragraphs 1 and 5 of that order but made it clear that paragraphs 2 to 4 were not stayed.

On 10 June 2024, I amended the order of 31 May 2024. The amendments simply corrected typographical errors in the earlier order.

On 27 November 2024 I was sent the transcripts of the hearings before HHJ Oliver.

On 20 January 2025 (amended 21 January 2025) I considered the appellant’s application for permission to appeal the order of HHJ Oliver dated 26 April 2024. I dismissed several of the appellant’s grounds for appeal as being totally without merit. I gave my reasons for doing so in writing at the time and I do not need to repeat my reasoning herein. However, I granted the appellant’s application for permission to appeal the order of HHJ Oliver on two grounds, namely:

By the time of the hearing before me on 21 May 2025, the respondent had sought and been granted permission to attend remotely. The expectation was that the appellant would appear in person. However, when the case was called on at 2pm on 21 May, the appellant did not appear. Enquiries were made of him from which it became apparent that he too expected to be able to attend remotely. The link was therefore sent to him at the email address he provided. However, he claimed not to have received it. It was thus sent on three further occasions to the email address he gave the court associate. Each time the appellant, who was contactable by telephone, said he had not received it. Accordingly, I adjourned the hearing to 13 June 2025 to enable him to participate fully in his appeal. The adjourned appeal hearing had to be accommodated in a busy afternoon list and the listing did not give any time for judgment.

On 13 June 2025 the appellant appeared before me in person whilst the respondent appeared remotely. I had an appeal bundle which included the skeleton arguments. The appellant chose to make brief oral submissions focused on his main points. The respondent chose to read through her written submissions. I gave the appellant a chance to respond but he did not have anything of substance that he wished to add.