Skip to Main Content
Beta

Help us to improve this service by completing our feedback survey (opens in new tab).

Marano v Marano

[2010] EWCA Civ 76

Case No: B4/2009/0926(A)(A)
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 76
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

(MRS JUSTICE ELEANOR KING)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday, 14th January 2010

Before:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

LORD JUSTICE WALL

and

LORD JUSTICE RIMER

MARANO

Applicant

- and -

MARANO

Respondent

(DAR Transcript of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Mostyn QC and Mr Warshaw (instructed by Hughes Fowler Carruthers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr Marks QC and Mr Clarke (instructed by Withers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Judgment

Lord Justice Thorpe:

1.

The application advanced by Mr Mostyn QC is for the admission of fresh evidence in the form of a letter from a Californian lawyer and a report from a London commercial property expert. These documents are late arising, long after the grant of permission to appeal in this case, and they are persuasively challenged by Mr Marks QC on the ground that the point as to Californian law is of doubtful value, was not run in the court below, and is in any event of no direct application here given that his client is not fundamentally Californian. We accept those submissions.

2.

In relation to Mr Wolfenden’s report, it is vulnerable to all the argument addressed by Mr Marks, namely that it has not been tested and it would accordingly be dangerous for this appellate court to found itself in any way on such evidence, particularly given the fact that it has come at such a late stage in the development of the appeal. At best, it would do no more than establish a snap shot valuation at January 2010 for that which was before the judge in March last. It does not seem to me that it is a necessary foundation for any of Mr Mostyn’s arguments, nor does it seem to me that to have refused the application or to remit it would impact in any way on the case that he intends to advance.

3.

So as a matter of principle, I conclude that we should refuse the application.

Lord Justice Wall:

4.

I agree.

Lord Justice Rimer:

5.

I agree also.

Order: Application refused.

Marano v Marano

[2010] EWCA Civ 76

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (85.6 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.