GENESALIO & GENESALIO

In the appeal SOA 88 of 2018, the husband sought leave to adduce further evidence, while in appeal SOA 83 of 2018, he sought leave to appeal the orders made by the trial judge. The primary judge had granted leave to the husband to adduce further evidence, but dismissed his appeal. The husband was seeking leave to appeal the orders made by the trial judge and to adduce further evidence to support his appeal. The wife opposed both applications. The legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the husband should be granted leave to appeal and to adduce further evidence, and whether the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion in making the orders he did.

The court found that the husband's application for leave to appeal should be granted because there was merit in the ground of appeal asserting apprehended bias. The court found that the primary judge had erred in striking out the husband's affidavit as being non-compliant with Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 as the Practice Direction did not apply to this affidavit. The court also found that the primary judge had not given proper consideration to the husband's medical conditions and financial circumstances, which were highly relevant to the issue of sole use and occupation. The court found that the primary judge had exercised his discretion to make costs orders correctly, and that there were circumstances justifying an order for costs being made.

The court allowed the husband's appeal, set aside the orders made on 8 November 2018, and dismissed the wife's application for interim orders insofar as she seeks an order for the sole use and occupation of the former matrimonial home and for the husband to vacate that property within 14 days. The court ordered that any party seeking an order for costs file and serve written submissions in support of that application by the close of business on Thursday 4 June 2020, and that the other party file and serve written submissions in response within 14 days of the date of receipt of the written submissions by the party seeking an order for costs. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.