No need to dress as if you were going to a business meeting or a funeral. Just be presentable and comfortable. Do not dress to impress or to show off. Just look measured and calm, whatever you feel like on the inside. Do not bring a whole group to Court for support. They will just get in the way and distract you. Having one a friend with you however is a good idea, if only to pass on messages or get the smints, or line up the drinks after the hearing. We would be interested in your comments, please…
The one thing the judge (or ‘The court’ as he or she so pompously often puts it) is to be involved in splitting contents. The judge has got the power to make an order of who has what, but a busy judge with pressing and urgent cases to hear is going to be pretty grumpy if at the end of a hearing, he is asked to spend hours arguing over who gets an old TV or DVD player. Try to agree contents, even if it means apparently giving up more than half. The game is not worth the candle. Produce…
Many articles talk about the courts granting injunctions. All this can be horrendously expensive. In a relationship you can use confidentiality agreements or pre-nups and post-nups to set out the boundaries, not use cloud services, use password protect devices and understand the technology. If anyone threatens to post images or private information without your consent, you have rights. Take expert advice at an early stage from a specialist lawyer.
An excellent article by Jonathan Silverman in the Solicitors’ Journal (www.solicitorsjournal.com) emphasises how reputations can be built up over years can be destroyed in moments. There is the well-publicised Google web form that asks for removal of unattractive material and giving reasons, but steps can be taken prior to that, not least because there is a huge backlog. Experience is showing that the lower profile applicants are doing better because the more well-known one is the more there is a fundamental right that that information remains public. This is in essence a victory for the “little man”. Expert advice from…
If you cannot afford a lawyer but think your spouse has sufficient surplus cash, you can apply for an Order that he or she is made to pay your legal expenses. This is separate from maintenance pending suit. That expression means interim maintenance. It is a monthly payment to keep a house and home together, pending the final divorce settlement. Often the monthly payments (typically to a wife) are pitched lower than the final settlement so do not get too down if that happens to you. It does not necessarily bind the judge in any way for the final maintenance…
Generally a parent cannot take the child out of the UK unless the other parent agrees or there is a Court Order. Indeed you might be guilty of a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984, even if you have just gone on holiday, or perhaps sheltering the child from the violence of the other parent There is a Hague Convention on International Child Abduction which covers most but not all countries. You can check out the latest list on their website. You have to check whether the father has parental responsibility. The Hague Convention’s procedure is extremely rapid…
This is the first of three court appointments, although one hopes to avoid the second and third to keep costs down. It is pretty boring. Typically it lasts 30 minutes, and the judge gives directions, which are usually agreed in advance. “A Direction” means a court timetable, for things like valuing the matrimonial home unless it can be agreed, what each party’s mortgage capacity is and whether the parties need to be compelled to provide information in questionnaires previously served or produced at the hearing. Sometimes the judge will go through the questionnaire line by line striking out unreasonable questions.…
This is the second of three court hearings when it is hoped to “knock heads together” to settle. It is very valuable. It is like having a free top barrister’s opinion because you hear from the judge who says “I am not your judge, but if I was your judge this is the Order I would make”. One plays very close attention to what the FDR judge says. It is often useful to compare what he says with what advice you have received to date and that is often a good test of the quality and experience of the legal…
In the case of Lloyds Bank v Foster-Burnell, the Judge ruled that the bank’s terms and conditions were unfair and “a significant imbalance to the detriment” of the customer. Terms and conditions have to be fair, and also not just changed by the bank, without consent. If you think your bank has overcharged you or overdraft fees are unfair, take expert advice from a specialist litigation solicitor or a lawyer. We would be interested in your comments, please leave them by clicking on the title to this blog above.
