family law news

July 2010

Latest statistics reveal that one in four women and one in six men will at some point in their lives be subjected to domestic abuse whether threats of or actual violence or other forms of psychological sexual or emotional abuse. Victims should not suffer in silence. There are a number of agencies and charities able to offer support and assistance. There are also support groups to help the perpetrators of such abuse. For a list of the relevant agencies and charities log on to to www.resolution.org.uk

April 2010

The Law Society Gazette on 9 April 2010 reported that Bryan Reed a consultant at Josiah-Lake Gardiner LLP has launched a fully online service for uncontested divorces (and dissolutions). The website address is www.justdivorce.co.uk

Recently the papers have been full of the story of Philippa Vaughn the ex-wife of barrister David Vaughn who claimed a divorce settlement from him 25 years after they split. They married in 1967 and were divorced 18 years later. Mr Vaughn subsequently remarried. In 2009 he applied to the court to stop the maintenance payments for his first wife (in the sum of £27,000). His application was successful and Mrs Vaughn appealed to the Court of Appeal claiming essentially a capitalised maintenance payment and was awarded £215,000. The reason why Mrs Vaughn was able to apply for a capitalised maintenance sum was because Mr Vaughn had the capital available to buy out her maintenance and also because she recovered in the divorce in 1985 a joint lives order meaning that the maintenance provision would continue during her lifetime (until Mr Vaughn’s death) or until her earlier remarriage. The decision was clearly the right one but it does bring into sharp focus the effect of such joint lives orders and the potential as here that maintenance will continue long after separation and for far longer than the parties were married.

Solicitors  Josiah-Lake Gardiner for Applicant Wife
                  Mishcon de Reya for Respondent Husband

Court
Family Division

Summary
The court divided assets between a husband and wife having regard to their respective needs taking account of resources which the husband was likely to receive in the future by way of a substantial, deferred bonus.

Facts
The applicant wife (W) sought an order for ancillary relief against the respondent husband (H). H and W had married in 1996. There were three children of the relationship. The parties separated in 2007 and decree nisi was pronounced in 2008. W and the children remained living in the matrimonial home. H's income fluctuated annually, and consisted of a relatively modest basic salary and a discretionary performance linked bonus paid in part in cash in the following year with the balance deferred and paid in instalments over three years. He had earned considerable sums post 2007 and was entitled to a deferred bonus payment for 2009. The parties agreed that W was entitled to receive part of the wealth that H had accrued post separation, but disagreed on the amount. The court was required to determine how much W should receive as part of a clean break award. W submitted that she should receive half of the parties' wealth, including bonuses earned by H as at the date of the final hearing. H contended that W's award should reflect the fact that a significant part of his resources had accrued after the parties had separated.

Held
HELD: (1) As a matter of policy, W was not entitled to half of the wealth as at the date of trial. It was not a case where such an award would either be appropriate or justified, Charman v Charman (2007) EWCA Civ 503, (2007) 1 FLR 1246 and Miller v Miller (2006) UKHL 24, (2006) 2 AC 618 considered. To so award would give insufficient weight to the fact that a substantial part of the wealth pool had accrued as a result of H's endeavours post-separation, nor would it be justified by reference to W's needs. The available resources totalled £15m, which included the deferred instalments that H would receive for bonuses awarded for 2006 to 2008 inclusive. Broadly assessed, W required total resources of £7 million, consisting of just over £1 million in respect of her capital needs and approximately £6 million in respect of her income needs. That met W's needs but also provided her with a fair share of the available resources. W was also entitled to 15 per cent of all sums received by H in respect of his deferred bonus instalments for 2009. It followed that if H was to receive the full bonus due for 2009, being £3.5 million, W would have total resources of £7.5 million and H would have £11 million. (2) Since the capital had been divided unequally in H's favour, H was obliged to pay the children's maintenance.

December 2009

Lord Justice Munby Calls for Reform of Legal Rights of Unmarried Couples

Lord Justice Munby, in his capacity as Chairman of the Law Commission, has said that unmarried couples need new legal rights to protect them on separation. The government is currently awaiting the results of research carried out in Scotland, where unmarried couples do have statutory rights on separation.

The judge also suggested that the division of finances on divorce is also in need of review. On this issue he commented that it was unsatisfactory that there should be a single set of criteria for dividing the wealth of all couples, however large the sum involved. “It might be an advantage having an approach for each”, he said.

NHS to Offer Counselling to Divorcing Couples

Divorcing couples are to be offered free counselling on the NHS in a bid to combat depression and help partners stay together, according to a report in the Observer.

Court of Appeal Upholds Decision to Remove Son from Uncooperative Mother in Contact Dispute

The Telegraph has reported on a decision to refuse a mother permission to appeal an order that her son should go and live with his father, despite the child’s objections.

The Telegraph reports that Lord Justice Wall refused permission to appeal the order of HHJ Bond of Bournemouth County Court, although he acknowledged that it would have an “almost cataclysmic” effect on the child. The child had lived with his mother most of his life, and is settled at school, but the court heard that the mother’s hostile attitude towards father and the issue of contact was emotionally harming the child. Lord Justice Wall therefore refused permission to appeal as the Circuit Judge had not been plainly wrong.