BAILII [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 >> Le Foe v Le Foe & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1018 (19 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1018.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1018

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


Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1018
B1/2002/0544

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Kirkwood)

The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
Wednesday 19 June 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE THORPE
____________________

Between:
DOMINIC ALAN LE FOE Petitioner/Respondent
and:
MARGARET FRANCES LE FOE Respondent/Applicant
GMAC-RFC LIMITED Intervener

____________________

The Applicant appeared on her own behalf
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Wednesday 19 June 2002

  1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mrs Le Foe, by an appellant's notice received on 14 March, seeks permission to appeal an order made by Kirkwood J on 20 February. The order is simple in its terms. It dismissed the application then before the judge, brought by Mrs Le Foe, and refused her permission to appeal. However, the gain for her on that day was recorded in a recital to the effect that counsel for GMAC, the intervening party, assured the court that his client would give consideration (1) to details of prospective purchasers provided in writing by Mrs Le Foe and (2) to any letter of advice obtained by her from Hampton & Co as to asking sale price.
  2. All this, of course, is underlain by a concern that the sale of family property by a mortgagee would result in prejudice. Mrs Le Foe tells me this morning that in fact the mortgagee has exchanged on the property on 7 June at a figure of £1.616m, which Mrs Le Foe agrees is a good price for the property. Accordingly any misgiving she may have had about the protection afforded to her by the order of 20 February is now overtaken by happy events. In any event, it is perfectly plain that Kirkwood J gave no judgment on that day. The transcript of proceedings shows that he conducted the application informally, obtaining from Mr Jones concessions which were subsequently recited in the order.
  3. For all those reasons, this application is now academic and I dismiss it.
  4. ORDER: Application dismissed


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1018.html