B1/2001/1290

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1445
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Munby)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Thursday, 27th September 2001

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

- - - - - -

ALI AL-HASANI
Applicant

- v -

ZAINEB SHABAN
Respondent

- - - - - -

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - -

The Applicant appeared in person.

The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
Thursday, 27th September 2001 
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Dr Al‑Hasani applies for permission to appeal the order and judgment of Munby J given on 6th June 2001. The judge heard an appeal from a very experienced district judge sitting in the Principal Registry, District Judge Maple. He on 29th March 2001 decided the financial issues between husband and wife upon their divorce. He provided that the husband should pay a lump sum of £2,500, that he should pay periodical payments for the wife and children at rate (a) whilst they were in this jurisdiction and at rate (b) once they had emigrated to Canada. Dr Al-Hasani tells me that their departure is fixed for the day after tomorrow.
2.	Dr Al-Hasani has understandable feelings of anxiety which surround the fact that he has an obligation to maintain his wife, at a rate which he regards as being excessively generous, until such time as she obtains employment in Canada. He says, and I fully understand this submission: what incentive is there for her to go job seeking when she can simply sit at home and live comfortably on the allowance that the court has ordered? His second an anxiety is that post emigration his contact to his two delightful daughters will be restricted to two annual visits in Canada and one annual visit in this jurisdiction. He points out that, inevitably, he will face very heavy costs both in travel and in accommodation in implementing this contact regime. 
3.	I can well understand Dr Al-Hasani's feelings of near despair at these developments in his life. He is a radiologist working within our health system and aspiring to consultant status. He does not have rights of residence here -- he still has his Iraqi passport -- and that, again, is something that he is aspiring to achieve in the years ahead. I have every sympathy for Dr Al‑Hasani: the years immediately ahead of him look tough. But I can only say to him that he must do his best to persevere and to bear the financial burden which the court has imposed upon him. 
4.	Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 precludes me from granting permission to appeal in any case where there has already been an appeal in the court of trial unless some important point of law or practice is demonstrated or there is some other compelling reason. This is not such a case. Dr Al‑Hasani points out that his appeal was determined in his absence. Furthermore, he stresses that on the eve of the hearing he had furnished a statement to the effect that he was suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection, something that is particularly serious for an asthmatic such as himself. But the decision to proceed in his absence was entirely a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. He took that decision after a careful review of the issues raised on the appeal. He reached the firm conclusion that the appeal against the discretionary ruling of the district judge was hopeless and that if he acceded to an application to adjourn he would only be increasing the burden of costs already resting on Dr Al‑Hasani. I cannot, for a moment, say that the judge was wrong to take that course. 
5.	This is simply not business for the Court of Appeal. Although I have every sympathy on a human level, there is realistically nothing I can do to aid Dr Al-Hasani; indeed, I would not be aiding him were I to grant him permission, for that would only constitute another hearing, this time in this court, with the obvious risk that he would have to pay the costs of an unsuccessful appeal. 
6.	For all those reasons this application for permission is refused. 
Order: Application dismissed.