![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Quan v Bray & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1401 (14 December 2015) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1401.html Cite as: [2015] EWCA Civ 1401 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
ON APPEAL FROM Family Division (RCJ)
Sir Paul Coleridge sitting as a High Court Judge
FD12D03916
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
B e f o r e :
and
LADY JUSTICE KING
____________________
Li ![]() | Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
Stuart ![]() | 1st Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
Save China's Tigers |
2nd Respondent |
____________________
Vardags
Solicitors) for the Appellant
The 1st Respondent appeared in person and was unrepresented
Richard Harrison QC & Samantha Ridley (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) for the 2nd Respondents
Hearing date : Tuesday 10th November 2015
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice King :
"to exercise the jurisdiction granted to them under the line of case law following re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19, which allow them to reverse or revisit or clarify their decision before sealing of the Order. Such an action would be in accordance with the overriding objective, to deal with the application justly, for the reasons set out in the notes in support of the application attached herein"
Attached to the Notice is a substantial document within which the husband seeks to reargue his case that permission to appeal should not be granted. The husband says: that there are factual errors in my judgment, that the court was grievously misled by those representing the wife at the oral application for permission to appeal and that the reasoning of Mr Justice Coleridge was clear and cogent. The husband underlines the devastating consequences of the litigation on the family and on the Charity.