In Archer v Archer & Ors [2026] EWHC 468 (Fam), the High Court heard applications for permission to appeal against a ruling that a husband's parents, who intervened in divorce finance proceedings, owned a property.
Key facts
- Who: A wife and husband in financial remedy proceedings, and the husband's parents, who intervened to claim a property.
- From: 23 February 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Catriona Margaret Archer v James Wallis Archer & Ors
Background
The case came before Ms Justice Henke in the High Court, Family Division, on appeal from the Family Court at Nottingham (HHJ Watkins). The judgment is dated 23 February 2026, with the neutral citation [2026] EWHC 468 (Fam).
Financial remedy proceedings between the wife and husband are pending in the lower court. The husband's parents intervened to establish that they were the beneficial owners of a property known as The Barn at Northwood Farm in Derbyshire.
HHJ Watkins heard the parents' application as a preliminary issue on 2 to 5 December 2024. In a written judgment circulated by email in March 2025, he found that the parents were the beneficial owners of The Barn. He based this on proprietary estoppel and ordered that The Barn be transferred to them free of mortgage.
On 8 July 2025 he made a perfected order. It required the wife and husband to discharge any charges and other securities over The Barn and transfer it to the parents for nil consideration by 22 July 2025. It also ordered the wife to pay the parents' costs of the preliminary issues, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. Those costs were to be paid at a time to be determined at the conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings.
The questions
The wife appealed. Her additional grounds challenged the costs order on two bases:
- The costs order must fall if her appeal on the preliminary issue succeeded.
- The judge had too little time at the 19 May 2025 hearing to hear a costs application, so the order was made without her substantive submissions on costs.
The parents also sought permission to appeal the costs order. They argued that there was no good reason not to order a payment on account of costs, which they proposed should be £100,000. They also argued that costs should be paid in the usual way after detailed assessment.
There was also a dispute about time. The wife's notice states that it was filed on 1 April 2025. She said it was submitted on 27 March 2025 and that a court office error in Nottingham led to the later date. The parents and husband said it was out of time.
The law on timing
The judgment sets out the Family Procedure Rules 2010 on appeals. An appellant must file a notice within the period the lower court directs or, if none is directed, within 21 days of the decision. The date of the decision is the date it is formally announced in court, not the date of the order giving effect to it.
Ms Justice Henke reminded herself of the guidance of Mrs Justice Knowles in IC v RC (slip rule) [2020] EWHC 2997 (Fam). That guidance treats an application for permission to appeal out of time as analogous to an application for relief from sanctions.
The permission applications were heard on 19 and 20 November 2025. Earlier, the court had twice stayed the transfer of The Barn:
- On 7 April 2025, pending the permission decision.
- On 28 July 2025, in respect of paragraph 2 of the 8 July order, pending permission and, if granted, the appeal.
What this means for people in divorce finance disputes
- The judgment confirms that the time limit for appealing runs from the date a decision is formally announced in court, not the date of the order that gives effect to it.
- Where a late appeal notice is in issue, the court looks at the reasons for the delay and all the circumstances.
Sources
- Catriona Margaret Archer v James Wallis Archer & Ors, [2026] EWHC 468 (Fam), High Court of Justice, Family Division, 23 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/468