|[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 >> Fleming v Fleming  EWCA Civ 1841 (17 November 2003)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1841,  1 FLR 667
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE TAYLOR)
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR JAMES RICHARDSON (instructed by Mincoffs of Newcastle upon Tyne) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"The court may direct that that party shall not be entitled to apply under Section 31 below for the extension of the term specified in the order."
"I certainly believe that this is a woman who has an earning capacity, part-time, in the region of £15,000 to £20,000 per annum if she is able to maintain regular part-time work as a dentist. I say 'part-time' because I am satisfied on the basis of the medical evidence that given the chronicity of this lady's problems over the years full time work is just not going to be achievable."
"I have no doubt that that man has an earning capacity in the region of £20,000 to £25,000 per annum."
"I have no doubt that if I terminate or uphold the existing order and say no more that this is a lady who will suffer substantial financial hardship or risk suffering substantial financial hardship over the next few years."?
It seems to me that that finding is not only unsupported by evidence it is indeed quite contrary to the judge's earlier factual findings.
"Doing the best that I can I have come to the view there should be a continuing obligation upon the husband to maintain his wife."
He said that that should be at the reduced rate of £500 per month and that it should be intended to run for the rest of their natural lives or until the remarriage of the wife.
[Appeal allowed, with the application for extension refused. No order in respect of costs at trial; amount of £3,000 paid originally to be repaid. Costs in appeal assessed at £4,000. Detail regarding payment to be negotiated]