As Resolution family lawyers, we are always encouraging our clients to try and be reasonable, to be willing to compromise, and to keep their case in proportion. “Don’t let the lawyers be the ones who get all the money” is a phrase we hear ourselves saying time and time again. But despite our (or their) best efforts, there are always going to be cases that don’t settle easily. The ones where the person on the other side just will not be reasonable, will not negotiate, or has such unrealistic expectations of what the outcome should be, that we are going to need help getting to a conclusion.
“The inequality in divorce law laid bare”. The recent case of Graham and Maria Mills, decided by the Court of Appeal, has sparked widespread outrage, as Mrs Mills’ maintenance, first set when the couple divorced 15 years ago, was increased by almost a third. The court decided that she should be financially supported for life, despite having received virtually all the couple’s available capital when they first divorced.
The radical changes to the rules regarding the use of pension funds to buy annuity policies – described by some as a “pensions revolution” - were at the forefront of the new Governments’ budget announcements in March 2014. Under these new rules, since April 2015 pensioners are no longer as restricted in how and when they draw down their pension money. They could choose to take some or all of their pension fund out as cash. Publicity at the time cited concerns of pensioners “buying Ferraris” and then falling dependent on the State – but in reality there appears to have been a fairly cautious uptake of this “cashing in”.
From TV programmes and films to the chat down the pub, mention divorce and ‘going to court’ is so often mentioned. Although many cases don’t end up in court I understand there is still a lot of confusion.It occurred to me that many people might not actually know what to expect when going to court in divorce or family proceedings. What does a divorce court look like? Is it akin to a boxing ring? Does...
It would be difficult to have missed the recent significant press coverage about two cases where wives have gone to the Supreme Court to seek to overturn financial orders made in their divorce proceedings.
The cases have slightly different facts – Alison Sharland’s divorce was clearly a "big-money case”, where the point in question was whether her husband's company was worth £31- £47 million (as he had stated at the time, which had led her to accept £10 million in cash plus some properties) or, rather, more like £1 billion as was subsequently reported in the financial press.