The 4^th July 2013, will see a new Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order that comes into force meaning that there will be a substantial increase in the fees paid to issue a Divorce Petition.

The Government say the intervention is needed as costs to divorce increase, as the current fee only covers 85% of the administration cost to process the documents: In the latest data, shown for 2011/12 the total cost was £594m and the fees recovered only amounted to £477m, seeing a large shortfall of £92m, which is contributing to the UK economy debt.

The summary states “These changes will affect, primarily, individuals pursuing family cases through the Courts and local authorities pursuing public law family proceedings. The fee increases for family proceedings will affect individual users of the service and local authorities who issue care and supervision proceedings.”

Despite the economy benefit, this new legislation will come as a blow to unhappy couples looking to start the divorce process, with Legal Aid funding for Family Law, also having been slashed earlier this year.

From the initial information shared, the increase looks to rise from £340 to £410.

If you are looking to pursue divorce proceedings, we encourage you to contact Vines Legal in the first instance to discuss how we can support you through your separation process in the most cost-effective manner, call the Chesterfield office on 01246 555 610.

The new legislation has been announced on the Government website and can be found by clicking this link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1407/contents/made

National Statistics released this week reveal that married people and those in civil partnerships rate their 'life satisfaction', the sense that their activities are 'worthwhile' and 'happiness yesterday' significantly higher than cohabiting couples, single, divorced and widowed people.

The research, based on the annual Population Survey collected between April 2011 and March 2012 show that single people rated their 'happiness yesterday' on an average 0.4 of a point lower than those who are married or in civil partnerships.

Summary of findings on age, sex, ethnicity, migration and religion

Holding other factors equal:

• Personal well-being is highest among younger and older adults and dips in middle age
• Differences in personal well-being between men and women are small, but women report higher ‘life satisfaction’, ‘worthwhile’ and 'happy yesterday’ levels.
• People of Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities rated their ’life satisfaction’ lower on average than White people.
• Indian and Pakistani people also rated their ‘anxiety yesterday’ higher than White people.
• People who have migrated to the UK rate their ‘life satisfaction’ and ‘happiness yesterday’ more highly on average than those who were born in the UK.
• Immigrants who settled in the UK more recently give slightly higher ratings for ’happy yesterday’ than those who have been living in the UK for 12 years or more.
• People who say that they have a religious affiliation rate their levels of ’happiness yesterday’, ‘life satisfaction’ and ‘worthwhile’ higher than people who said they have no religious affiliation.
• The size of relationship between religious affiliation and personal well-being is small.

Personal well-being, often referred to as subjective well-being, is people’s own assessment of their own well-being.

Many factors have been shown to be related to personal well-being such as health, disability, age, ethnic group, employment situation, relationships, religious beliefs and participation, etc.

The report can be viewed in full here

Divorce Lawyers across the UK are calling for an urgent reform in the Law in order to stop husbands hiding their wealth from their wives upon commencing divorce proceedings — as Britain’s most senior judges prepare to rule in a landmark “cheat’s charter” case.

Local Law firm, Vines Legal based in Chesterfield, has spoken out about existing legislation ‘cheat charters’ which can prevent divorcees from obtaining assets which are held by their former spouses within companies.

The Supreme Court will next week (12 June) make the decision whether oil mogul, Michael Prest, 51, can escape handing over assets totalling more than £17.5m to his ex-wife Yasmin, 50, through his divorce settlement.

In 2011, the High Courts ordered Mr Prest, to pay the settlement to his former wife, of 15 years, however the Judge stated as Mr Prest has avoided previous Court Orders, that he should in the first instance, hand over the assets of his properties to the UK as a part-payment.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) reversed the ruling in October 2012, and Mrs Prest took her case to the Supreme Court.

Divorce lawyers are concerned that the CoA ruling would have a negative impact on wives and effectively create a “cheat’s charter” for wealthy husbands looking to escape their financial obligations to the family.

Solicitor of Vines Legal, Claire Clark expressed “Ministers should be ready to amend this legislation in Parliament if the Supreme Court fails to act when it delivers a verdict. There is widespread concern among family lawyers across the UK about the implications if this loophole isn’t closed”.

Under the current legal interpretation, the reason spouses are not able to access property held in companies is because other investors or creditors might have claims on the assets.

If you are in the situation of filing for a divorce and are concerned about how you will be affected, please call the team at Vines Legal on 01246 555 610.

Uproar has been caused this week with lawyers and children’s group campaigners following the announcement from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of new guidelines.

The new guideline, thought to be introduced next year is aimed at reducing the bill met by taxpayers for pursuing fathers, but lawyers believe that the new child maintenance charges will instead financially penalise children.

Currently, parents disputing the amount paid once separated can appeal to the Child Support Agency free of charge, though this is one of the services due to be cut in the new measures.

The new Child Maintenance Service, which will replace the CSA, will now charge a mother 4% of her payment to investigate a payment failure and a further 20% to fathers who no longer reside with the family, on top of their payment, as a penalty.

This announcement comes from government pressure to cut the £500 million annual bill to administer the system and said it’s with the hope that parents will to agree payments between themselves.

However, many independent legal firms and regional groups of the Law Society have remarked concerns that many of the associated legal issues have been largely ignored.

The new system will mean that, for example, a mother due £100 per week from her former husband/ partner would instead receive £96 if she asked the CMS to step in. The agency would pursue the father for the £100, plus a further 20 per cent, in this case £20.

Considering that the average weekly maintenance figure for the UK is just £40, the percentage fee is a substantial reduction in the claim.

If you are concerned you will be affected by these changes, please call the team at Vines Legal on 01246 555610.

A report published this month by the Marriage Foundation states that couples who don’t marry when they become parents are often more likely to offer a stable home.

The study is based on new findings from Understanding Society and concludes that the trend away from marriage is the main driver of rising family breakdown. Key findings include:

• 45 per cent of young teenagers (aged 13-15 years old) are not living with both parents
• Half of all family breakdowns takes place during the first two years
• Amongst parents who remain intact, 93 per cent are married.

In sharp contrast, of the 47 per cent of children born to unmarried parents today, the report predicts that just 11 per cent will reach the age of 16 with unmarried parents still together. The remainder will either marry or split up. Those who remain unmarried and intact are a small minority.

With family breakdown costing an estimated £46 billion a year – that’s to say, more than the entire defence budget – in addition to the immeasurable social damage, it is clearly in the interest of government and the taxpayer to work to counter this devastating trend.

The report expresses concerns that the Government has ignored the strong correlation between marital status and family breakdown and focused instead on "long term stable relationships" when developing family policy papers.

The full report can be read here.

Hope for those who think they cannot afford the legal costs of divorce

The much-trumpeted changes to legal aid which came into force last month have, hidden away in the legislation, created a chance for some people to obtain funding to proceed with divorce.

There has been provision for a spouse to claim, where applicable, funding from the other spouse if they do not have the resources to pay for legal representation.This was covered by the 'maintenance pending suit' legislation within the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, however it has now been explicitly provided for in two separate sections of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“the Act”).

The less well-off spouse, who may have worked part-time for most of the marriage or stayed at home and brought up the children - may not have any assets in their own name, or have any access to actual liquid cash with which to pay a lawyer. Under the new Act they can now make an application to court for the payment of their costs by the other party to be considered. Under the new sections of the Act there is provision for 'orders for payment in respect of legal services' - effectively known as 'legal services orders'.

The main message to be taken is that, as long as the disadvantaged spouse cannot reasonably afford legal advice or representation - either through borrowing, liquidating assets or through third party funding - then there may be a case for claiming a legal services order from the other spouse. This is of course as long as the other spouse has the sufficient and appropriate ability to provide any such assistance. We anticipate that the ability of one spouse to apply for their costs to be paid by the other will be very controversial and could be subject to abuse.

With the new regime firmly in place it will be interesting to see how regularly this part of the Act is utilised.

Another strain on the beleaguered family law system  - provision of partial funding for witness reports could create more delays, say those in the know

The recent ruling of Mr Justice Ryder that the Legal Aid Agency ( formerly the Legal Services Commission ) is not necessarily liable to pay for all of the costs of an expert witness statement in family cases has certainly caused a stir at the Law Society, and can indeed be seen as having a possible detrimental effect to many families.

In the case of JG v the LSC, JG was a ten year old girl who brought a claim for a judicial review of the LSC's decision not to fully fund the cost of providing an expert  witness report. It was ruled that the LSC had not acted unlawfully in funding merely a third of the costs, its argument being that there were three parties to the case - mother, father and daughter - and that it was obliged only to pay for the child's element of the case.

The Law Society reacted with disappointment to the ruling, with President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff believing it to put families in a 'deadlock' situation, and creating an 'impasse' in cases where such witness reports are required and yet the parties are unable to pay for it.

The Ministry of Justice said that the recent reforms to the legal aid system ensured the prioritisation of taxpayer-funded legal aid - however, the Law Society saw this as letting down families who cannot pay for important reports which assist in their respective cases, arguing that there is not a distinct benefit to parents in such cases, rather it is a child's future which is being decided and this should take priority.

It is difficult not to see this as yet another factor which could slow down a family case, putting strain on the family law system which is already being tested to breaking point with the legal aid reforms so recently brought into practice.

Small claims limit changes give scope for more litigation

There are many changes currently being implemented in Civil Litigation - rather than go into detail here, we have chosen to highlight the advantages to those seeking to make a small claim.

Previously, only claims of up to £5, 000 could be dealt with by the small claims court. Coupled with no right to claim costs, many people were scared off litigating for smaller-scale disputes due to the fear of paying their own potentially escalating costs which could eclipse the original claim!

However, the limit in the small claims court has risen to £10, 000, which can be taken as an advantage to those who have a slightly larger claim and yet don't want the threat of being hit with the other side's legal costs. If you want to sue someone for an unpaid bill, or negligent work perhaps, then although your own costs of legal representation must be borne, the larger limit provides an element of safety in pursuing such claims - you will not be liable for the costs of the other side, save for in exceptional circumstances.

Vines Legal's civil litigation department is here to explain in detail just how the above changes could affect any claim you may wish to pursue. Many individuals are put off legal advice, but that is the very thing which can solidify a claim and give it credence in the small claims arena.

As always, our free first consultation of 30 minutes is available, so we urge anyone who may have a claim to come in and discuss their options with us.

The general principle, and indeed the general perception in civil litigation cases is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party - ie loser pays winner.

However, the court always retains its discretion where costs are concerned, and where a party ( claimant OR defendant ) has been seen as behaving unreasonably, then costs can be reduced or increased accordingly.

Judges may deem the following types of behaviour from a claimant or defendant as unreasonable:

• Pulling out of a case at the last minute when there has been no change in the circumstances;
• The pursuit of a case which is both unsupportable and speculative - ie unlikely to get the intended outcome;
• Pressing a case which is essentially hopeless with an ulterior motive of embarrassing or inconveniencing the opposite party;
• Causing adjournments by not turning up at a hearing without a reasonable excuse
• Making a dishonest claim
• Ignoring a reasonable offer to settle in advance of the hearing

Such behaviour is a matter of fact and degree, but must be quite serious to attract an order for costs. For example, the court's discretion has been exercised with regard to costs in situations where one party has refused, without having a legitimate excuse, to engage in an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR).There have been cases in which despite a party being awarded costs, that party has had the amount reduced due to their refusal to attempt to settle under mediation.

Mediation is seen as having advantages over the court process - such as providing litigants with a wider range of solutions: an apology, an explanation or the possibility of continuing an existing professional or business relationship. It is also important to note that, if a party unreasonably believes its case to be watertight, then that is no justification for refusing mediation - whilst if it can be shown that the party reasonably believed the case to be watertight, then this could be sufficient justification for refusal to mediate!!

The above can sound very complex, however what is important to bear in mind is that practitioners and clients alike must be aware that when they go down the road of suing another party, their conduct throughout the case will be noted and may be relevant to the costs awarded at the end, whatever the actual legal outcome from the litigation procedure.

Much has been made of the plans to launch a National Crime Agency through the Crime and Courts Bill currently going through Parliament. The creation of a single family court is also a part of this Bill however, and could have just as great an impact, albeit unintentionally.

There is already an expected increase in the number of litigants in person - that is, members of the public who choose to represent themselves during the legal process rather than use a legal professional - due to the recent removal of legal aid for family law cases.

The family law sector has speculated greatly on how this withdrawal of legal aid (with effect from the first of this month ) will impact throughout - and its effect is expected to be felt in the courts as well as in private law practices in England and Wales. Not only will many law firms who undertake legal aid work find themselves with potentially much less work and fewer clients, it is expected that the court system will find itself inundated with people unable to afford representation who decide to go it alone.

This is an issue we have mentioned in earlier blogs here at Vines, and only time will tell how this situation will pan out. However, with more individuals going through a process of which they are at best unsure and at worst totally ignorant, this will certainly slow down the divorce process while due process is explained to all parties.

There are also plans afoot for HM Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to create a single London family court within the building which houses the Principal Registry of the Family Division - thus reducing the number of family courts from 32 to 25, and the number of district judges at the principal registry from 20 to 12. Whilst these plans have not been finalised, the combination of these reductions along with the legal aid changes is seen as increasing the strain on the family courts system.

This topic has been widely debated in the media, and in one publication was described as a 'perfect storm' for family courts. The current financial climate is no doubt coming to bear on the situation too. All in all, a challenging time for family law and its practitioners.