[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 >> Heywood v Hey [2001] EWCA Civ 1333 (18 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1333.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1333

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT
SITTING AT SALFORD
(Mr Justice Gibbs, Mr Recorder Dodds)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 18th July 2001

Wednesday, 18th July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Ms Heywood applies for permission to appeal the order of Gibbs J of 20th December 2000 and the order of Mr Recorder Dodds of 25th August 2000.
2. In order to explain the background, I draw on the judgment of the Recorder who considered the history of the relationship between the parties to the proceedings, Ms Heywood and Mr Hey.
3. The two of them, Ms Heywood now in her late forties and Mr Hey in his mid-fifties, came together in about 1980 and, although marriage was contemplated, no marriage was in fact celebrated, but two children were born of the relationship, Timothy in 1982 and Sandra in 1984. Timothy is now of age. Sandra will be now 17. She has done well in education and I believe that she is now in further education.
4. In the mid-1980s Ms Heywood and Mr Hey jointly bought a home at 5 Massey Walk, Peel Hall. It cost about £35,000 and about £28,000 was taken on mortgage. Sadly, in about 1998, the relationship between the parents broke down and Ms Heywood left (probably on 17th December 1998) with both children. She moved into two-bedroom rented accommodation at 1 Leeton Avenue.
5. By the autumn of 1999 Mr Hey, who remained in occupation, in fact initiated proceedings under the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. That application came before His Honour Judge Tetlow on 29th February 2000. He was sitting in the Manchester County Court and he made an order, on Mr Hey's application, for the sale of 5 Massey Walk and for the equal division of the proceeds of sale. Ms Heywood was upset by that order. She applied to the judge to set aside the order, alternatively for permission to appeal and a stay; but those applications were refused by Judge Tetlow on 15th June 2000.
6. On the next day Ms Heywood issued an application under the Children Act 1989, section 15 in the schedule, for ancillary relief for the children. In the meantime, on 24th July 2000 the Deputy District Judge made an order that the contract for sale of Massey Walk might be executed by a District Judge if Ms Heywood would not execute it herself.
7. A month later the Children Act application came before Mr Recorder Dodds. He refused Mrs Heywood any relief. Her appeal from the orders of Judge Tetlow and of Deputy District Judge Smith came before Gibbs J sitting in Manchester on 20th December, when he dismissed her appeal.
8. Sadly, things have proceeded in accordance with the orders in the sense that on 1st June 2001 District Judge Beatty made the order for the property to be sold, himself executing the transfer, and the house sale was duly completed on 8th June.
9. In a moving submission, Ms Heywood says to me, "All I want is my home back." She says, "It was our home. Even our pet rabbits are buried at the bottom of the garden." All that I completely understand, but we must inhabit the real world. The house is somebody else's home. It has been sold. A family has paid good money for it and now it is theirs. So all that now remains is for Ms Heywood and Mr Hey to receive their share of the proceeds of sale.
10. Ms Heywood has complained, and I understand the complaint, that at various stages costs have been ordered against her because of her obdurate refusal to implement the basic order. But there is nothing that I can do in relation to those discretionary adjudications.
11. In relation to the order for sale made by His Honour Judge Tetlow there has already been an appeal which has been dismissed by Gibbs J. Therefore her application to this court for permission is caught by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Plainly, there is no important point of law or practice, nor any other compelling reason to grant permission and that application is refused.
12. In relation to the judgment of Mr Recorder Dodds, I have read his judgment with care but can find no fault in his discretionary conclusion. That application equally is dismissed.
Order: Application dismissed.