Error of Law/Fact

Can someone please explain in simple terms the difference between an error of law and an error of fact

An error of fact means that you think the judge had the wrong facts or interpreted them incorrectly. With the right information, you think the judge would not have ruled against you, and you want a chance to give a higher court that information.

An error of law means that the judge had all of the right information, but you think the law wasn’t applied correctly. Judges are human; a mistake could have been made.

Charles

Thank you
In this particular case the information and evidence re pre and post separation debts was provided, (most of the debts were incurred for the benefit of the children /family) however when delivering his judgment he said the debts were non matrimonial. Following his judgment it was immediately raised that he said the debts were not matrimonial, but judge was dismissive and as good as said it was irrelevant. Permission to appeal was requested and refused.

The amount of debt will have a bearing on whether an appeal will be successful or not. If treating the debt differently leads to an order which is within the broad range of orders the court can make, the appeal if not likely to be successful.

Unfortunately when matters go to trial it cedes control to the court to make a decision which cannot be agreed between the parties. More often than not the decision is disappointing to one or both parties.

There is also the issue of 'needs' If one party has greater need than another and the matrimonial pot is limited, the Court will make an order in favour of the party with the greater need even if this is unfair to the other party. This might not apply in your case but worthy of mention in any event.

Charles

Thank you.
The parties needs are the same, equal 50/50 shared care with the children. M has mortgage raising capacity and no debts, F has no mortgage raising capacity plus both pre separation debts that were incurred for the benefit of the family and post separation debts incurred for the benefit of the children. The court did not take these into account which resulted in F being awarded insufficient % to meet the housing needs for himself and the children, whereas the M's % + her mortgage raising capacity is sufficient to buy another property. If the debts had been taken into account, together with the M's mortgage raising capacity there would be sufficient in the pot for both parties to buy a property that would meet their housing needs. At the FDR the judge took the debts into account and indicated a higher percentage for the F than what the judge ordered in the final hearing.

You would have to examine the judgement to determine what the Judge's thought process was. Was credibility an issue?

Charles

As Judgment was delivered in court, a written judgment has not been provided. I assume a written judgment will be needed to appeal. If thats the case do you know the process for requesting one at public expense. As far as we know credibility was not an issue