New divorce law to end the blame game

New divorce law to end the blame game
Justice Secretary David Gauke, MP yesterday announced what the Family Law world have been fighting for years to achieve – the real prospect of no-fault divorce. Demonstrating irretrievable breakdown of a marriage requires at least two years of separation or one spouse to 'blame' the other for the breakdown in the marriage. This is the onl...
Continue reading
  273 Hits
273 Hits

What Factors make my Divorce International?

What Factors make my Divorce International?
A number of factors can give rise to there being an international element to your divorce and it is important to consider these upon separation as they often provide an extra level of complication. If any of the below apply to your situation you may have an International Divorce: You or your spouse are a national of another country or have dual nat...
Continue reading
  117 Hits
117 Hits

New family lawyer joins the team

Remyhs-Baker
The Family Law Team are delighted to welcome Remyhs Baker to the firm. Remyhs is a passionate family lawyer and is looking forward to helping our clients in all areas of family law. In this article, we find out a little bit about Remyhs. Remyhs joined the firm in early 2019 after training and qualifying at a leading London law firm. She q...
Continue reading
  327 Hits
327 Hits

7th January is Divorce Day

divorceweddingringsweb
For many of us, the most depressing thing about Monday 7th January is that it marks the first full week back at work after the new year. However, for some it is also the day that marks the end of their marriage. In fact, so many people pick up the phone to a divorce lawyer on this day that is now known as 'Divorce Day'.& ...
Continue reading
  476 Hits
476 Hits

PM Announces Civil Partnerships for Mixed-Sex Couples WILL Happen

PM Announces Civil Partnerships for Mixed-Sex Couples WILL Happen
Marriage has in recent years undergone change that has made it widely available to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. While that focus has of course been well meaning, in its wake it has left another segment of the community stranded when wanting to formalise their relationship. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 made it possible for sam...
Continue reading
  450 Hits
450 Hits

Groups rally together to dispel common law marriage myth

Groups Rally Together to Dispel Common Law Marriage Myth
A coalition of legal organisations and legal charities have joined together to urge the Government to update the outdated legislation relating to cohabiting couples and the myth of "common law" marriage. On 18 th August 2018, the busiest day for marriages in the UK this year, these organisations have collectively written to the Government urging a ...
Continue reading
  1097 Hits
1097 Hits

Divorcing in England and Wales after Overseas Marriage IS Possible

Divorcing in England and Wales after Overseas Marriage IS Possible
​You would be forgiven for believing that the place in which you marry has some relevance to the place in which you must divorce. The assumption that you have no choice in where to divorce and you must divorce in the country where the marriage took place is simply not true. The truth is that it does not matter where in the world you marry; if ...
Continue reading
  386 Hits
386 Hits

Mills V Mills - No 'Second Bite at the Cherry'

Mills V Mills - No 'Second Bite at the Cherry'
The Supreme Court, the highest Court in the country has recently ruled in the case of Mills V Mills that the wife, having exhausted her capital by entering into a series of unwise financial transactions, could not have increased periodical payments from her ex-husband to fund part or all of her rent. The wife had been left with sufficient capi...
Continue reading
  507 Hits
507 Hits

Owens V Owens - The Blame Game Continues

Owens V Owens - The Blame Game Continues
The Supreme Court, the highest appeal court in England and Wales, has recently dismissed an appeal of Mrs Owens, who wants a divorce, on the basis that she has failed to prove that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The court upheld previous decisions by the original trial judge and the Court of Appeal that Mrs Owens must remain married to...
Continue reading
  605 Hits
605 Hits

Marriage or Civil Partnership - The Choice is Yours?

Marriage or Civil Partnership - The Choice is Yours?
A heterosexual couple have won their legal battle for the right to enter into a civil partnership as opposed to a marriage. Catherine Loadman explains more. The Supreme Court has declared that the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) which prevent a different sex couple from entering into a Civil Partnership are incompatible with...
Continue reading
  574 Hits
574 Hits

Family Courts - a Holistic Approach?

Family Courts - a Holistic Approach?
James Munby, President of the Family Division, has called for a one-stop holistic court system to deal with the real problems that modern families now face. Families now almost have an infinite variety of forms, married, cohabiting and same-sex couples. Children are living in houses where their parents may be married or not. The unit may comprise o...
Continue reading
  448 Hits
448 Hits

Family Court Orders – A Joke To Some?

Family-Finances
A breach of a Family Court Order in matrimonial finances is not always sanctioned at the first opportunity; in fact, it usually takes several breaches for the court to be willing to step in.

However, as the recent case of Hart V Hart [2018] EWHC 549 (Fam) demonstrates, the Family Court will punish those persistent offenders, eventually. In this case, an 83-year-old man reneged on his undertaking, which was originally given in 2015 and contained within a Family Court Order at the time. The Undertaking, which is a promise to the court, required the husband to provide to the wife documents and information to assist her in running a company, which had been transferred to her upon the divorce. The husband did not do so willingly despite his promise to the court. The wife, therefore, had to bring the matter back before the court on several occasions throughout 2016 and 2017. During those years, further orders were made requiring the information to be provided, and yet the husband still did not comply with the Family Court Order.

The case came before HHJ Wildblood in February 2018 and, in his judgement of March 2018, the Judge determined that the husband had breached both his Undertaking and various Court Orders and that his actions were deliberate; his evidence untruthful; and that he had shown no remorse. His punishment was an immediate prison sentence of a total of 14 months.

HHJ Wildblood has shown in this case just how serious breaches of Family Court Orders are, and his readiness to punish this persistent offender by committing him to prison should serve as a warning to all parties in matrimonial financial proceedings.

This judge is not the first to impose a custodial sentence due to breaches of Family Court Orders. In the 2016 case of Trott V Trott, the husband and his new wife were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and 14 days (which was suspended), respectively. The breaches, in this case, occurred when the husband sold matrimonial assets which were subject to a Family Court Order and did not pay to the wife’s solicitors the sale proceeds. His new wife was sanctioned by the court for not complying with an Order requiring her to produce bank statements and evidence of the purchase of a property.

Earlier cases such as Young V Young 2013; where the husband was imprisoned for failing to provide full financial disclosure and Zuk V Zuk 2012; where the Husband was imprisoned for 9 months failing to pay a lump sum of £15,000, support the lack of sympathy the Family Court Judges have for continued breaches of their Orders.

Continue reading
  478 Hits
478 Hits

More Support Needed for Kinship Carers

Kinship-Carer
A recent study conducted by Grandparents Plus has highlighted a desperate need for more support for ‘kinship carers’ across the UK. Family Solicitor Lucy Birch explains.

Up until recently, there was always been a widespread assumption that contact with natural parents is usually beneficial for children of parents with addiction issues or are involved in crime.

However, the findings of a recent research project carried out by Grandparents Plus reviewed the effects of parental contact on children being cared for by relatives other than their parents. The findings suggest that contact with mothers which was of a difficult nature could have a lasting impact on children late into their teens, and even into adulthood.

The study found that contact with parents with drug or alcohol-related problems in an unsupervised environment can have a seriously detrimental effect on children. Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration; in the above kind of situations, they believe that the children are not being put first. The study highlights the importance of considering whether contact is supervised, the nature of that parent’s relationship with the child to date, and what type of support is offered.

‘Kinship caring’ is an increasing trend with more than 180,000 children in the UK being raised by a member of their family other than their parents. In the majority of these cases, the family courts have decided that the parents are unfit to care for their children due to drug or alcohol misuse and often have been convicted of crimes. The research has found that 52% of children in kinship care have experienced neglect or abuse in their previous home environments.

The study conducted by Grandparents Plus is based on a survey completed by over 650 kinship carers. This shows that, despite many carers stepping in to care for children who would have otherwise gone into local authority care, only one in ten feel they’re getting the support they need. 47% of carers say they are not getting the financial support they need, including 28% who feel very poorly supported. There are an estimated 180,000 children in the care of relatives in the UK, and it’s likely that up to 95% of carers are not entitled to any statutory support.

Continue reading
  325 Hits
325 Hits

What Does Legal 500 Mean for Clients?

What Does Legal 500 Mean for Clients?
Legal 500 is a big deal for law firms across the UK – but what exactly does it mean for clients? Our Family Partner Catherine Polli breaks down what the rankings are all about.

 

What's your position at Pinney Talfourd?

I am head of the family team and have been since I joined the firm in 2004.  Prior to that, I was a barrister for 7 years practising in Central London. I then joined a smaller firm in Essex for a short period of time before moving to Pinney Talfourd. I lead a team which comprises of five partners, two senior associates, an associate and a solicitor.

 

What exactly is Legal 500?

Legal 500 is the largest and most in-depth independent survey of the UK legal market. Most lawyers regard it as the definitive guide! To enter Legal 500 you need to put together a very detailed submission referencing the most important and significant cases you have been involved in over the last year. Independent references are then taken from your clients, opponents and Counsel.  Only 14 firms in the whole of Essex are listed in Legal 500 for excellence in family law.

 

Why do you enter Legal 500 UK each year?

We believe Legal 500 provides us with independent recognition for the work we do. Being recommended by Legal 500 sets us apart from the rest - it provides clients and potential clients who are referred to us with an independent assessment of our ability and provides a flavour of who we are, the type of work we do and what makes this team special.

Continue reading
  749 Hits
749 Hits

Prenups – a Matter of the Head or ‘Hart’?

Wedding-Rings-1
The number of couples considering a prenuptial agreement is expected to rise after the Court of Appeal dismissed a woman’s request for her and her ex-husband's assets to be split equally.

In the case of Hart v Hart, His Honour Judge Wildblood QC awarded Karen Hart just £3.5m out of the total assets amounting to just under £9.4m in a financial remedy order made in June 2015. This unusual ruling wasn’t as a result of a ‘short, sharp’ marriage as documented previously, as the couple’s marriage spanned 23 years.

Karen Hart’s solicitor said the settlement 'should have been based on an equal sharing of the assets they created between them during this time', and the recent ruling 'leaves the law in a state of flux. It allows a trial judge to find that even where it is not properly evidenced, the financial contribution of one spouse outweighs the family and domestic contribution of the other. This can lead to a result that is unfair and discriminatory, as it has done in this case. More such results are likely to follow, with the potential to set the law back more than 20 years'.

Regardless of whether this latest ruling will indeed set a precedent for financial remedy cases moving forward, it will no doubt make couples who are looking to wed in the near future think about their financial assets, and how best to allocate them should the worst occur by drafting up a prenuptial agreement.

 

MORE INFORMATION 

For more information relating to divorce law, prenuptial agreements and how Pinney Talfourd can help, please contact our Family Law department - call on 01708 229444 or email us using the form to the right to arrange a free initial consultation.
 
  345 Hits
345 Hits

Between a divorce rock and a hard place – Owens V Owens

Divorce-1
The impending divorce of Mrs Tini Owens and her husband Mr Hugh Owens is in the limelight once again following an appeal to the Supreme Court.
 
Since her initial case for divorce was dismissed by senior judges, Mrs Owens has been given permission to appeal her case to the Supreme Court, the highest appeal court in our jurisdiction. The decision they make should now be able to put an end to the much debated contentious divorce proceedings within the UK.

Mrs Owens originally petitioned for divorce against her husband of 37 years on the basis of his unreasonable behaviour. Under the law in England and Wales, a petition on this basis is one of only two ways separating couples can commence divorce proceedings immediately. Mr Owens defended the proceedings which in itself is somewhat unusual.

Multiple court hearings have since followed and the court have found, to date, that the examples of unreasonable behaviour Mrs Owens included within her divorce petition are not enough to satisfy the threshold, trapping her in what she calls “a loveless marriage”. The Court of Appeal found that "Parliament has decreed that it is not a ground for divorce that you find yourself in a wretchedly unhappy marriage, though some people may say it should be."

There is current debate surrounding whether there should be legislation to allow separating couples to divorce immediately on a ‘no fault basis’. The idea is that this would enable couples to engage in the divorce process on a more amicable, less confrontational basis and would hopefully avoid the type of litigation Mr & Mrs Owens have had to endure.

The case demonstrates that it is vital to seek legal advice at the outset of separation to ensure that unnecessary, costly and stressful litigation can be avoided. 

 

MORE INFORMATION 

For more information relating to divorce law, finances and how Pinney Talfourd can help, please contact our Family Law department - call on 01708 229444 or email us using the form to the right to arrange a free initial consultation.
 
The contents of this article are for the purposes of general awareness only. They do not purport to constitute legal or professional advice. Specific legal advice should be taken on each individual matter. This article is based on the law as of July 2017.
  418 Hits
418 Hits

A Short, Sharp, Shock for Married Couples

Divorce-Quickie-1
A City trader has successfully challenged a divorce judgment awarding her ex-husband of four years £2.7m in a ruling that lawyers say ‘gives couples more to bicker about’.

Mr and Mrs Sharp were married for four years. They had no children together and both worked full-time earning approximately £100,000 per year each. Mrs Sharp, however, did receive significant bonuses amounting to over £10 million during the marriage. Throughout the course of their marriage, the couple kept their finances separate, although they did purchase property together and shared in the costs of acquiring and refurbishing those properties.

Upon Mrs Sharp finding out Mr Sharp was having an affair in 2013, she issued divorce proceedings and the financial elements of those proceedings were initially determined by the court in November 2015. The Judge decided that Mr Sharp was entitled to exactly half of the matrimonial pot, which amounted to £2.75 million. This decision was very much in line with the long-established sharing principle upon divorce. Mrs Sharp appealed that decision and argued that the equal sharing of the matrimonial assets, which were mostly built up by her, was unfair.

The Court of Appeal have recently found in Mrs Sharp’s favour and decreased the award to Mr Sharp to £2million, which is less than 50% of the matrimonial pot. This decision is a significant departure from the long-established principle of splitting the matrimonial assets down the middle upon divorce, despite the length of the marriage.

Lord Justice McFarlane, one of the three Appeal Court Judges, found that in this case there was no impediment to depart from the established principle of equal division and he concluded that in a short, dual career marriage in which the couple had kept their finances separate, it was indeed justified.

This decision creates further uncertainty in the law and conflicts with the general principle of an equal split upon divorce. This case concentrates on the fairness of the outcome in the circumstances of this couple’s situation and clearly reflects the position that the courts will not apply an automatic split down the middle in every case and that the couple’s circumstances must be considered in each and every case.

Continue reading
  368 Hits
368 Hits

Divorce and Financial Proceedings to be ‘Unlinked’

Finances-1
Following a successful pilot, financial proceedings will be ‘administratively de-linked’ from divorce proceedings on 19 June. We take a closer look at what this new development entails.

The experiment was initially piloted at a divorce centre in Southampton, and its launch is expected to save family solicitors weeks of delays in future cases. In a letter published this week, family division president Sir James Munby and HM Courts & Tribunals Service deputy chief executive Kevin Sadler said that the pilot had accomplished its purpose of introducing a more streamlined process to divorce proceedings, reducing the delays experienced by court users as files are transferred between courts by up to two weeks.

Presently, if a contested financial application is made by one or both parties, the whole proceedings are transferred to a local court. The pilot in question administratively unlinks financial proceedings from divorce so that the main divorce proceedings remain in the specialist centre, whilst staff and judiciary at the local hearing centres worked separately on the contested financial proceedings. Other matters such as consent applications remained at the divorce centres.

A separate financial remedy file is then created at the local hearing centre, holding the same case number as the divorce proceedings. Many family solicitors are hailing this new approach as more effective and speedy than before.

Family law group Resolution also welcomed the news; they stated “Any steps that reduce delay and make the administration of family proceedings more efficient must be encouraged. This is just one example of how quite simple changes can make a difference in practice”.

 

MORE INFORMATION 

For more information relating to divorce law and how Pinney Talfourd can help, please contact our Family Law department - call on 01708 229444 or email us using the form to the right.
 
The contents of this article are for the purposes of general awareness only. They do not purport to constitute legal or professional advice. Specific legal advice should be taken on each individual matter. This article is based on the law as of June 2017.
  377 Hits
377 Hits

London Reclaims Its Divorce Capital Crown

Divorce-1
A wife has been awarded a whopping £453 million in financial matters upon divorce; this latest case allows London to reclaim its crown as the divorce capital of the world.

The couple in the case have not been named but the full judgment can be reviewed AAZ v BBZ [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam). They married in 1993 and had two sons. The wife was 17 years younger than the husband and was described to be a housewife and a hands-on mother during their marriage. The husband was a businessman with significant wealth. The husband sold shares for US $1.375 billion during their marriage and at the point of divorce, the wife estimated their marital wealth to be over £1 billion.

The Judge accepted that the total wealth of the family was wholly matrimonial and that it should, therefore, be shared between the husband and wife.

The husband, in this case, seems to have not done himself any favours by failing to attend at court for the various hearings. The husband did, however, rather fittingly given the wealth involved, appear at the final hearing by video-link from his yacht in the Caribbean.

London is well known for being the divorce capital of the world and women from all over the world seek to issue their divorce proceedings in London if they have sufficient links to the country to secure jurisdiction. The reason for this is that the courts in London tend to take a more sympathetic attitude toward housewives or stay at home mothers.

The law provides for a starting point, in line with the sharing principle, in long marriages of a 50/50 split of the matrimonial assets regardless of who earns the most. The court will also give consideration to the standard of living the family has enjoyed throughout the marriage when determining a financial award. This means for a stay at home wife, who has been married to a wealthy businessman for a long while, is likely to receive an award very close to 50% of the entire matrimonial wealth.

Continue reading
  433 Hits
433 Hits

Social Media – Friend Or Foe In Family Proceedings?

Social-Media-1
Almost every client who is involved in family proceedings has a social media profile; we look at the potential implications they could have on the outcome of a case.

Almost every client who is involved in family proceedings has a presence on social media, whether it be via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or LinkedIn. Most have their ex-partner or soon to be ex-spouse as a ‘friend’ or ‘follower’ on the various platforms, and many more have a number of their ex-spouse’s friends as ‘friends’ or ‘followers’.

Often clients believe the best way forward is to remove an ex-partner or spouse as a ‘friend’. This in itself can prove to be a hostile step and may jeopardise a conciliatory route forward. Even if they do they will still be connected to friends of friends and information will disseminate back to the interested party.

However, if parties remain linked via social media it can prove insightful in a number of respects. For instance, Facebook profiles may show status and this may be useful if cohabitation or new relationships are in issue. Health and lifestyle can often be a key factor and often Facebook can paint a very clear but potentially unrealistic picture that will be then relied upon within proceedings. Employment status is also a key factor; LinkedIn will show employment history which again may not match the CVs produced within proceedings.

Whether the evidence gained from social media can be used within court needs to be carefully considered, but it can prove invaluable, particularly if it can be shown the date of when key information was obtained. It does, however, have to be looked at in context and comments in particular need looked at in light of the overall conversation.

The best advice offered to clients when asked is that, unless they are happy for a Judge to consider it, don’t post it. That appears to be the safest rule for all concerned.

Continue reading
  388 Hits
388 Hits

© Pinney Talfourd Solicitors | Disclaimer | Offices: Upminster | Brentwood | Hornchurch | Leigh-on-Sea | Canary Wharf