Oliver Riley recently achieved a successful outcome in a complex financial remedies appeal involving farming and inherited assets.
Oliver acted for the respondent husband. The case concerned a farming family in which the husband farmed cattle and sheep, while the wife bred horses and supplemented her income through other employment. As is often the case in agricultural disputes, there were substantial capital assets despite relatively modest incomes.
The case was complicated by a number of unusual features. A substantial proportion of the assets had been inherited by Oliver’s client after separation. Certain land forming part of the inheritance had been used by the parties under licence throughout the relationship and thereafter, and the administration of the estate remained incomplete at the time of the final hearing. The parties also maintained atypical living arrangements during the marriage, and subsequently, and there was a delay of many years before the financial remedies application was issued.
Following a two-day final hearing before a Deputy District Judge and the delivery of a reserved judgment, Oliver settled grounds of appeal challenging the first instance decision. Matters were complicated by the Judge’s decision to circulate a second judgment, apparently intended to better explain or amplify the original decision, without formally handing it down. An issue arose as to the legal status and significance of that second judgment, which needed to be addressed on appeal.
It was argued, and accepted, that the second judgment had no legal status per say, but should nevertheless be considered on appeal, to inform the reasons and rationale for the first instance decision, following the approach taken by Buxton LJ in Roche v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2005] EWCA Civ 1454 (see paras 25 and 27).
Grounds of appeal asserting that the first instance decision was wrong, included:
- That the Judge misdirected herself as to the applicable law, both in the application of the recent decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, and to conflate fairness in the parties’ particular circumstances with equality over all assets.
- That the Judge erred in her approach to computation of the assets.
- That the Judge’s analysis failed adequately to assess and identify relevant ‘need.’
- That the Judge made factual findings which properly were not open to her to make.
- That the Judge failed fully to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties at the final hearing when making her decision.
- That the Judge’s decision produced an unfair outcome.
The circumstances of the second judgment being circulated and its content were also advanced as a ground of appeal, being argued to amount to a serious procedural irregularity.
Oliver successfully obtained permission to appeal from HHJ Parry on all grounds pursued at an oral permission hearing, the appeal Judge being satisfied both that the appellant had reasonable prospects of succeeding in his appeal and that there was a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
At the request of the parties’ jointly, the subsequent appeal hearing was used to determine the substantive financial remedies application, with the appeal Judge substituting her own judgment for that of the first instance Judge pursuant to FPR 30.11(2)(a) and Re B(A Child)(Appellate Court’s Function)[2014] EWCA Civ 565 (para 44). This enabled a final determination to be achieved for the parties in the most proportionate and cost-effective manner possible.
The appeal Judge’s decision resulted in Oliver’s client retaining approximately £200,000 more of the available assets than under the original decision.
Although successful appeals within financial remedies proceedings remain comparatively rare, this case serves as a reminder that appeals are capable of succeeding where the circumstances justify intervention. While such a course should never be pursued lightly, financial remedy appeals are not confined to ultra high net worth cases.
Oliver is a financial remedies, trusts and estates barrister, a Deputy District Judge and a civil mediator. Find about more about Oliver’s practice here