Author: Victoria Thomson

SA Law’s outstanding work for commercial and private clients has been recognised by the Chambers and Partners 2012 Guide to the UK legal profession.

SA Law has been recognised as a leading regional practice by independent legal research bodies Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500, in addition to achieving The Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation.

A leading publisher of legal research, Chambers conducts thousands of interviews with lawyers and their clients every year to identify regional leaders around the world.
All of SA Law’s departments have been recognised as regional leaders in the Northern Home Counties, with Managing Partner Steve Ryan cited as a top tier lawyer: “These achievements are extremely important in a sector that suffers from fierce competition in a slow economy. Achieving recognised first class credentials in the marketplace has never been more essential.” Adds Steve Ryan.

To find out more about SA Law and how our dedicated team can assist your business, visit our website www.salaw.com

Author: Marilyn Bell

The short answer to this question is no.

Grandparents can find it very difficult when their son or daughter separates from their spouse or partner and in some cases this can lead to a significant loss of contact with their grandchildren.

It is possible for grandparents to apply the Court for a Contact Order. However, there is an additional requirements, over and above the requirements for a parent. Grandparents have to obtain permission from the Court first to make the application. The thinking behind this is for the Court to rule out applications that have little chance of success.

However, grandparents should not be discouraged by this. The Norgrove report has found there is no indication from Court outcomes that it is particularly difficult for grandparents to obtain the Court’s permission to proceed.

Click here to read the full article

Author: Keith Docking

Following The Supreme Court decision in Radmacher -v- Granatino it is fair to say that a properly drafted pre or post nuptial agreement is more than likely to be upheld by a divorce court. That does not mean however that it is binding on the Court. Until Government legislates to say that these agreements are binding (presumably with certain safeguards for example ensuring children are properly supported) then they are going to be capable of challenge. The key when drafting an agreement is try to ensure that when they are scrutinised down line that they are attractive to a Judge. Certain tips might be to, for example, provide full financial disclosure, make sure each party has the benefit of legal advice and to provide for the other parties needs. It would be tough to defend, for example, an agreement that gave a party nothing after a long marriage.

Are these agreements only the domain of the rich and famous? Whilst it may be inappropriate to have a pre-nuptial in all cases, the following maybe examples where they should be considered:-

(a) significant pre-marital assets;
(b) second marriage;
(c) business assets including a business that has been in the family for a number of years;
(d) inheritance or future inheritance;
(e) where there are children of a previous marriage.

In the absence of an agreement excluding these assets from divorce they all go in the pot and the Court then decide how to divide the same.

For further information about our family services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact our lawyers Marilyn Bell or Keith Docking at our St Albans office by email at marilyn.bell@salaw.com or keith.docking@salaw.com or on 01727 798066.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

The Supreme Court will be ruling  on a case where the Court of Appeal gave an ex partner an equal share in a property they both owned although they had been separated for 13 years and he had not paid toward the mortgage since they separated.
This case identifies the difficulties facing unmarried couples who jointly own property.  It is probably the biggest area of law for confusion and misunderstanding. The partner who remains in the home often thinks that their ex’s share will be limited to the value of the property at the time they split up;  or even that he/she won’t have any rights to it as they chose to move out and have not been paying toward it. This is not the case and it highlights the importance of seeking legal advice at the time of the split and basing future decisions on that advice.
It can be heartbreaking for the remaining partner to have spent years paying for a property and taking good care of it, with repairs, maintenance and improvements only to find their ex successfully claiming half.

To read more about the impact of Cohabitation Rights, click here.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

The BBC reported that ‘A woman who claimed she was disabled has been stripped of her divorce settlement after her ex-husband spotted online pictures of her belly dancing.’

This may sound far fetched but it is possible for the Court to set aside an Order settling finances on divorce,  if it turns out later that one person misled the other.  The misrepresentation has got to be significant,   and the Court have to be satisfied that if the ‘new’ information was known at the time of the financial settlement there would have been a different outcome.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Marilyn Bell

Many of you would answer “no” to this question.  However, the answer can be “yes”. If a Husband and Wife divorce financial settlement can include an Order for the Husband to pay maintenance for the Wife for the rest of her life.

It is then possible for the Wife to apply to the Court for this maintenance sum to be increased to cover nursing home fees.  Even though capital is divided at the time of the financial settlement, it is also possible for the Court to capitalise the maintenance figure and, instead of maintenance, Order the ex- Husband to pay a lump sum to his ex-Wife in lieu of any future maintenance.

If it is possible to achieve a clean break at the time of divorce this kind of risk can be avoided.

Cases in the news involving ‘Clean-break’ clauses

• A case was recently reported in Ireland; a couple divorced twenty years ago but the husband was forced to sell property in order to fund his ex-Wife’s nursing home fees. Read more here.

• A similar case involves the £56million divorced lottery winner whose ex-Wife of ten years successfully sued for a share of his winnings due to not signing a ‘clean-break’ clause. Read more here.

Contact us

For further information about our family services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact our lawyers Marilyn Bell or Keith Docking at our St Albans office by email at marilyn.bell@salaw.com or keith.docking@salaw.com or on 01727 798066.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Keith Docking

The suggestion in some quarters that Alex Reid could be entitled to a third of Katie Prices estimated  fortune of 50m is fanciful . whilst Mrs Miller in a high profile divorce may have secured 5m from a reported fortune of 30m after circa 2 years of marriage this had much to do with the fact that a significant proportion of 30m came in during the course of the marriage. I doubt that is the case unless Katie had a particularly good year in 2010! I would hazard a guess at enough to buy a decent house and a modest lump sum.

Should you require any specific advice on matters raised in this article, please contact the Family Law Team at SA Law on 01727 798000, or email keith.docking@salaw.com

Author: Marilyn Bell

Earlier today BBC online posted a story on The Public Account Committee report which stated CAFCASS had failed to challenge “fundamental weakness in its culture, management and performance.” The committee went on to say that CAFCASS is “not fit for purpose.”

As a family solicitor, I endorse the need for change at the service provision level to shorten the time for allocation to a CAFCASS officer and the time needed to prepare a report. We do however, need to keep in mind the very valuable work that CAFCASS do. In private law cases where Mother and Father are locked in combat on the future arrangements for their children, it is often only the input from committed and dedicated CAFCASS officers that enable such a situation to progress with children being able to have the benefit of contact with both their parents.

Author: Keith Docking

German newspaper heiress Karin Radmacher successfully defended a claim by her former husband Nicolas Grantino where he challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a pre-nuptial agreement.

The Supreme Court decision in the Radmacher case appears to have shifted the law to a position where a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement will be upheld unless it can be shown to be unfair. Thus we have moved away from the agreement being a circumstance of the case, albeit a “magnetic one”.

This will place huge emphasis upon the drafting of these agreements. If you understate the provision to meet the needs of the financially weaker party you will still (potentially) fall foul of the court refusing to uphold on the ground that the outcome is manifestly unfair. Having said that, in Radmacher the Supreme Court were, it could be said, hardly generous in their interpretation of the husbands needs. Would the outcome have been the same if the roles had been reversed?

This case has attracted much media attention, but whether pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements become the norm for marrying couples other than the very wealthy, only time will tell.

Author: Marilyn Bell

It’s good to see that our new coalitition government have expressed support for better access to children for grandparents when parents separate.

It’s a double blow for many grandparents that not only has their child’s marriage or partnership broken up,  but that they are not able to see their grandchildren. For the children they have not only lost their daily contact with one of their parents,  but the love and support from one set of grandparents has also disappeared. Grandparents will welcome government support that recognises their importance in their grandchildren’s lives.

Related Article: Has the Law Changed for Grandparents?