Financial Remedies Journal: Case Summary: Lockwood v Greenbaum [2022] EWHC 845 (Fam)written by, Stephanie Coker, published on 13 April 2022.

Moor J.

W applied for permission in this jurisdiction to bring an application pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (‘1984 Act’) for financial provision following a divorce in New Zealand. Permission was refused at first instance [20]–[21]. W appealed the decision mainly on the ground that the judge erred in finding that there needed to be substantial connections with England and Wales before permission could be granted. Permission to appeal was granted (see FPR 30.3(7)(a), Re: R (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 895). The law in relation to appeals was succinctly outlined in [29]–[31].

W’s appeal was successful. Moor J considered the law regarding applications for permission to apply for financial relief under Part III of 1984; [32]–[35]. Section 13 provides that permission shall not be granted by the court unless it considers that there is substantial ground for making an application for such an order. Applying the test as set out by Lord Collins in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13 at [33], substantial meant ‘solid’. It followed that there was no precondition that the court must be satisfied that there are substantial connections with England and Wales before permission could be granted. The connection to this jurisdiction was merely one of the factors to be considered in section 16(2), and this did not have any priority over the other factors listed in that section. Permission for leave to make an application under Part III was therefore granted.