‘Thousands of divorce settlements could be left open to appeal because the Government’s new stamp duty surcharge is leaving estranged partners unable to buy their own home following a split.’
Daily Telegraph, 30th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during May 2016.’
Family Law Week, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Baroness Hale was primarily responsible for the introduction of compensation (SRJ v DWJ [1999] 2 FLR 176). She is a fine lawyer and judge, but she was only briefly an advocate. I am no judge at all with a degree in English, but I have argued a lot of cases. Whilst doing so I have appeared against some outstanding advocates such as Lord Wilson, the late Mrs Justice Baron, Mr Justice Mostyn and Mr Martin Pointer QC. As advocates they looked and in the case of Martin, look to persuade the court. I believe that in presenting a wife’s arguments they would all have rejected submitting that she should be compensated for gender related disadvantage. They would have done so for various reasons. Compensation is a dangerous word as it has its most natural and best established use in the law of tort. It is also manifestly insensitive. Any husband who has maintained his wife and children for, say fifteen years will be hurt and annoyed by the proposition that he should compensate his wife for the experience. He may, or may not be placated by the subsequent reference to gender related disadvantage. At least that shows compensation is a systemic concept, rather than directed at him personally. But fully expressed the words display the origin of the concept in a feminist approach to divorce. The advocate would know that some tribunals would reject the socio-legal concept; if only because another feminist analysis would give primacy to the wife’s autonomous ability to look after.’
The 36 Group, 18th May 2016
Source: www.36group.co.uk
‘Women who move in with other men after getting divorced are still entitled to a share of their ex-husband’s wealth, the UK’s most senior family judge has ruled.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th May 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate, and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during April 2016.’
Family Law Week, 15th May 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The issue for many judges is the period over which the standard of living is to be maintained.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 16th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘England and Wales still remains one of the most generous jurisdictions for financially dependent spouses, despite greater judicial appetite for making ex-spouses provide for themselves, research by an international firm reveals.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th April 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This guide provides information for separating couples who are negotiating their own financial agreements on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. It provides a succinct summary of the law to help those who do not have access to legal advice to reach financial agreements without the need to go to court.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 5th April 2016
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The parties were married in September 2001 and had one daughter born in October 2002. The husband, a Saudi national, was a businessman of substantial means who married again in 2012 when the parties’ marriage broke down. On their divorce the wife applied for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The husband applied to strike out the wife’s application , claiming immunity from suit as the permanent representative of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”), a post to which he had been appointed on 1 April 2014. The United Kingdom was required, as a matter of international law, to grant privileges and immunities to personal representatives of member states to the IMO in accordance with the Specialised Agencies Convention and the Headquarters Agreement. A permanent representative was entitled to the same immunity from suit and legal process as the head of a diplomatic mission, except that, by article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002), a permanent representative who was permanently resident in the United Kingdom was only entitled to immunities and privileges in respect of his official acts. The Foreign Secretary certified that the Foreign Office had been informed by the IMO of the husband’s appointment as permanent representative of St Lucia, of his arrival date and had not been notified that his diplomatic functions had terminated. Although on the face of it that certificate was conclusive evidence of the husband’s appointment by virtue of section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, the judge balanced the husband’s claim to immunity against the wife’s rights to access to the courts under article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He concluded that the husband had not undertaken any duties or performed any functions as permanent representative, that the appointment was an artificial construct to defeat the wife’s claims on the breakdown of the marriage and that, since the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom, he was entitled to immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. In consequence the judge refused to strike out the wife’s claim.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal recently decided a discreet argument regarding periodical payments orders in the case of Aburn v Aburn [2016] EWCA Civ 72. So, what are the implications for automatic variations in periodical payments? Practitioners and Judges alike will be familiar with the concept of stepped periodical payments. However, the commonplace order will be for periodical payments to be stepped downwards based upon either particular trigger events (such as children reaching their majority, a payment of a lump sum order) or after a specific period of time during which it is judged that the recipient of the periodical payments can, or ought to, have taken steps to increase their earning capacity. Given the commonplace nature of these orders, it is perhaps understandable that a deputy district judge (DDJ) presiding over the final hearing of the financial remedies application of Mrs Aburn (and then a Circuit Judge hearing the appeal thereafter) thought perhaps an order “stepping up” periodical payments upon a particular trigger event was a clever solution, thereby falling into what we now know was an error of law and an impermissible exercise of his judicial discretion. ‘
Tanfield Chambers, 1st March 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘This week, the English family courts have sent yet another message in support of families and free choice.’
The Independent, 20th March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Company boss, Peter Morris, has nothing but his ‘anger’ to show for 25 years of marriage after a series of rulings’
Daily Telegraph, 14th March 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A businesswoman who left behind her career in order to become a “stay at home mum” while her husband continued with his high-flying career has been awarded virtually all of the family fortune by a divorce judge.’
The Guardian, 14th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Alexander Chandler, barrister, 1 King’s Bench Walk, offers insights into the arbitration process.’
Family Law Week, 26th February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘In ancillary relief litigation, whose responsibility is it to quantify the value of future pension benefits and their non-pension substitutes if offsetting is being considered? What method should be applied to any comparison of pension and non-pension assets?’
Tanfield Chambers, 16th February 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘According to the Law Society Gazette, the outcome of more than 2,000 may have been voided by the Form E software fault. Justice Minister Shailesh Vara MP has indicated, in a statement to Parliament, that the assets of more than 3,600 couples were miscalculated.’
Family Law Week, 15 February 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A grandmother who lived with her partner for almost two decades until his death has won a High Court battle after his estranged wife inherited half their home.’
Independent, 16 February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Charles Hale QC and Henry Clayton, both of 4 Paper Buildings, outline the debate which the Court of Appeal declined to resolve in the recent case of Ramadani v Ramadani [2015] EWCA Civ 1138.’
Family Law Week, 24th January 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024