[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 >> Read v Obe [2001] EWCA Civ 596 (5 April 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/596.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 596

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday, 5th April 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application by Pamela Read for permission to appeal a consent order made in the Bournemouth County Court by the late Judge Chalkley on 29th June 1998. The application for permission was directed in for an oral hearing on notice, since its essential element is that the respondent husband, having achieved a consent order on 29th June on the premise that he was on the verge of insolvency, may have received up to £3.8m on the sale of a company, Computer Aided Medical Systems Limited, in August 1999. There is no doubt that the respondent owned the shares in that company at the date of compromise, but it is only an inference that he owned the shares 14 months later and was accordingly the recipient of the consideration for sale.
2. Mr. McCourt, who has brought the application to this court, has relied upon the decision of the House of Lords in Barder v Barder [1988] AC 20, asserting that the August sale was a supervening event enabling the court to resume its jurisdiction within the narrow parameters established by their Lordships. Mr. Peirson, who has responded to the skeleton at relatively short notice, says that this is not a Barder case. In that submission he may well be right. But on reading the skeletons, it seemed to me that what was really being asserted by the wife was that the consent order was vitiated by misrepresentation or by material non-disclosure. Such an assertion can always be raised to apply to set aside a consent order without meeting the strict tests set out in Barder. Mr. Pierson in responding says, with justification, that that was not the case that he prepared to meet, and further that those acting for the wife are open to serious criticism for having made no efforts to explore the reality in correspondence prior to initiating proceedings in this court. Mr. Pierson says that an investigation will show that the respondent had disposed of his shareholding in CMAS prior to August 1999 for only £75,000 and that whoever benefited from the August sale it was not his client. I have accordingly, to give the respondent a fair opportunity to deal with what is essentially articulated this afternoon for the first time, adjourned for a period of time, and directed that within that period the respondent file an affidavit explaining developments since the negotiations of the compromise and exhibiting the essential documents. Arrangements will be made for the application to be relisted on a date next term with a time estimate of 30 minutes. Costs of today will be reserved.
Order: Application adjourned as per judgment.