David Burrows examines the lessons set by Kingdon
Where a court decides to set aside an earlier order can it do so in respect only of part of the order; or must the full order be set aside and a re-hearing be ordered? This was the main question posed by Kingdon v Kingdon [2010] EWCA Civ 1251. This article provides a further opportunity to contrast the set aside and the appeal jurisdiction of the courts.
Facts of Kingdon
In Kingdon the parties concerned had been married for 23 years (separation was in 2003) and they had three children. Their financial order in March 2005 was on a clean break basis and was intended to reflect equality of division of their assets, with a further payment by husband (H) to wife (W) of £200,000 to reflect his increasing earning power.
H was a chartered accountant. In July 2004 (by which time W had started her ancillary relief claim) H had acquired 200,000 £1 shares at par (using a bank loan for the purchase); and in October
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
