The case in June of Dennis North,a builder being ordered to pay more money (£200,000) to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had "fallen on hard times" was beyond madness and certainly anti-male.
Mr North successfully appealed against the judgement.
As quoted from the Daily Telegraph (link) at the time, "Mr North, 70, was divorced from his first wife Jean, 61, in 1978 - a year after finding out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with. In 1981 he made a financial settlement with the woman he married in 1964, buying her a house and investments." It was also covered elsewhere including a debate on the Daily Mail site (link) and The Times (link).
Mrs North, who now lives in Leeds, was awarded the £202,000 by a district judge last year. The ruling was later upheld in the High Court.
Mr North then had to appeal and Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, ruled that the award was “fundamentally flawed”. The story was covered in The Times (link) and The Telegraph (link) . The Appeal Judges ruled that District Judge Peter Greene who awarded her the lump sum had an approach which was “fundamentally flawed” and the appeal should be allowed.
The issue is that the judgement made by this District Judge Peter Greene was so wrong and unfair that it is clear he is not fit to be a judge. Why did Mr North have to spend time and money appealing the case? Any costs should be paid personally by the District Judge.
Can you imagine a court awarding such a figure to a man whose ex-wife then went on to make a fortune? Of course not.
Comments