Family Law

Our lawyers are recommended in The Legal 500 United Kingdom 2018 editorial (listed below)

WEST MIDLANDS
Dispute resolution - Commercial litigation - Birmingham
- Dean Parnell
- Kamal Majevadia

Dispute resolution - Debt recovery
- Kamal Majevadia
- Hayley-Jo Lockley
- Gemma Parker

Finance - Insolvency and corporate recovery
- Leanne Schneider-Rose

Human resources - Employment
- Dean Parnell
- Samantha Glynn

Insurance - Clinical negligence - claimant
- Mike Sutton
- David Lydon
- Adam Hodson
-Stephen Jesson

Insurance - Personal injury - claimant
- Mike Sutton
- David Lydon
- Adam Hodson

Insurance - Professional negligence
- Sundeep Bilkhu

Private client - Contentious trusts and probate
- Kamal Majevadia (leading individual)
- Tracy Creed

Private client - Family - Birmingham
- Karen Moores
- Mauro Vinti

Private client - Personal tax, trusts and probate
-Tracy Creed ~
- Nicholas Bennett
- Ravinder Sandhu

Public sector - Health
- Dean Parnell
- Fahmida Ismail
- Tony Harris (Deceased)

Real estate - Commercial property - Birmingham
- Georgina Walsh
- Div Singh
- Fahmida Ismail

Real estate - Property litigation
- Sundeep Bilkhu
- Kamal Majevadia

At a time in your life when you are feeling very vulnerable, legal costs can add to the stress of the breakdown of the family and so it is vital to consider all options.

Very few people are entitled to legal aid, but if you are, you need an experienced legal aid lawyer to deal with your matter and make sure that legal aid funding is obtained as quickly as possible.  If you are not entitled to legal aid, what are the options?  If you do not having savings or surplus income, in some circumstances it may be possible to apply to the court for interim maintenance from your spouse to help fund legal costs, but that in itself can increase costs so not always appropriate.  Another option is to look at a litigation loan. The interest is paid each month, but the capital  is repaid from any settlement.

In my experience most people would prefer to receive invoices on a monthly basis.  That will enable you to budget for costs and keep control of how much is being spent.  It is vital that you work with your lawyer to make costs affordable.

Consider how much legal advice you need.  Do you need a lawyer to help you with all steps or just one step, for example attending a court hearing?  We offer schemes to help you pay for the legal help you need, rather than for the whole of your case.

For help and advice contact Amanda Holland on 0808 166 8827 or email a.holland@sydneymitchell.co.uk

Everyone has a story of a “bad divorce”.  It usually involves lots of legal costs, stress, court proceedings and hurt feelings. 

Is it possible to have a good divorce?  Here are some tips which may help:

• - Choose a family lawyer who is a member of Resolution.  We abide by a code of practice which says we will do everything we can to ensure that you and your former spouse remain on good terms whilst at the same time providing you with specialist family advice.
• - Unfortunately we still need to say why the marriage has broken down to start divorce proceedings.  Hopefully that will change with the campaign for a no fault divorce, but in the meantime if possible agree on the reasons why the marriage has broken down and avoid “fault”.  If you have been separated for 2 years and both agree, then you don’t need to set out lots of details of the other party’s bad behaviour or adultery – just say you have been separated for 2 years and you both agree.  If that is not an option, don’t set out pages and pages of bad behaviour and don’t name the other party if adultery is the reason the marriage is at an end.
• - Start with the commitment to reach agreement on money and child arrangements.    Consider the collaborative process.  This is all about you and your lawyers working together in one room to try to sort out arrangements for money and children. 
• - Put yourself in the shoes of your child.  How would you feel if you couldn’t see your Mother or Father?  How would you feel if your Mother or Father made nasty comments about each other to you?

Divorce is hard.  I am not convinced that you can have a “good” divorce, but I do think you can have a “better divorce”.

Please contact Amanda Holland a.holland@sydneymitchell.co.uk on 0808 166 8827 to discuss this or other related family law matter.

Family inheritance disputes can be witheringly sad and it is absolutely essential to seek independent legal advice to ensure that peace prevails after you are gone. In one case, a man’s death, leaving a £16 million fortune, raised the curtain on years of venomous dispute between his two children.

The man’s will was as simple as could be, in that it left his estate equally between his son and daughter. However, by a previous will, the daughter had been left her share only for her lifetime. That would have meant that, on her death, her inheritance would have passed to her brother or, if he did not survive her, his children.

Following the man’s death, aged 92, his son launched proceedings, claiming that he lacked knowledge and approval of the contents of the later will at the time of its execution. He argued that the earlier document was his last true will.

In rejecting those arguments, however, the High Court found that the son had lost all sense of perspective about the case, to which he had devoted himself full time for three years. He had persuaded himself, contrary to the evidence, that his sister and his mother had engaged in a conspiracy to overcome his father’s free will.

There was nothing remarkable or suspicious about the man’s decision to make an equal and outright division of his estate between his children, and the Court had no hesitation in concluding that he was fully aware of the nature and effect of the document he was signing.

For advice please contact Kamal Majevadia 0121 746 3300, email k.majevadia@sydneymitchell.co.uk and for Wills Trusts and Probate matters contact Tracy Creed 0121 746 3320, email t.creed@sydneymitchell.co.uk.

In big money divorce cases, much is made of the distinction between the so-called sharing principle and needs-based assessments of financial entitlements. However, as a High Court ruling in one such case clearly showed, family judges are in fact focused on just one thing – overall fairness.

The wife, a former model, and the husband, a successful entrepreneur and software engineer, were married for about four years and enjoyed an exceptionally lavish lifestyle. Upon their divorce, the assets that fell to be divided between them were agreed to be worth over £38 million.

The wife sought a lump sum of £16 million – about 40 per cent of the total pot. Her lawyers put her reasonable housing needs at up to £7 million and sought capitalised maintenance of £8.5 million. The husband, however, offered her a lump sum of £5.1 million on the basis that £3.5 million would be sufficient to meet her housing needs and that her income requirements could be capitalised at £1.6 million.

In assessing the contribution that each of them had made to the marital wealth, the Court took account of a period of about four years before their marriage during which their relationship was solid and quasi-matrimonial. The husband, however, had achieved much of his business success before they became committed to each other, having sold a business for over £15 million several years previously.

The Court therefore adjusted the wife’s share of the available assets to reflect the wealth that the husband had brought into the relationship. Her housing needs were assessed at £4.5 million and her capitalised income needs at £4.44 million. Applying the sharing principle, the Court awarded her a total lump sum of £9.31 million, about 24.3 per cent of the pot. The husband was also ordered to contribute over £700,000 towards her legal costs.

The Court noted that, in taking a broad brush approach to the matter, it had sought to apply a combination of the principles of sharing, needs and compensation in a non-discriminatory manner. In respect of the departure from equality in dividing the marital assets, it was both essential and fair to make an adjustment to reflect the husband’s pre-existing wealth. The Court was satisfied that the overall outcome was fair to both husband and wife,

For help and advice please contact Karen Moores on 0808 166 5638 or email k.moores@sydneymitchell.co.uk

When family judges make financial orders in divorce cases, they are not beating at air and have panoply of powers to make sure that they are obeyed. A wealthy businessman who spent over £70,000 on his wedding to his new wife, whilst neglecting to pay maintenance to his ex-wife, found that out to his cost.

Following the end of his 12-year marriage, the businessman was ordered to pay his ex-wife a £5 million lump sum. Until that debt was satisfied in full, he was required to pay her £8,000 a month in maintenance. He had, however, made no such payments for almost a year and was a total of £88,000 in arrears. In those circumstances, the wife’s lawyers sought his committal to prison for contempt of court.

In finding that he had refused or neglected to pay his ex-wife maintenance, the High Court noted that he had, during the relevant period, bought a country house for £4.3 million and spent lavishly on wedding ceremonies in England and Morocco. His bank records revealed payments into his account of more than £40,000 a month. In the circumstances, the Court was in no doubt that he could have paid his ex-wife the maintenance due to her had he chosen to do so.

Noting that an immediate term of imprisonment was likely to have a serious impact on the man’s business, and might sour his and his ex-wife’s relationship with their two children, the Court agreed to stay its hand. Sentencing was adjourned for six months, but the businessman was warned that, if he failed to clear the maintenance arrears before then, he would be at risk of losing his liberty.

For help and advice please contact Amanda Holland, a.holland@sydneymitchell.co.uk on 0808 166 8827.

Burying your head in the sand and ignoring court orders is a good way of ensuring defeat in litigation. A wealthy vineyard owner engaged in a big money divorce case found that out to his cost after failing to meet his obligations to his estranged wife.

The businessman, aged 70, and his 50-year-old wife had had two sons together before they separated. Having settled with the children in England, she launched divorce proceedings in London, about a month before her husband did the same in his native France. An English judge accepted jurisdiction to consider her petition on the basis that she was by then habitually resident in this country.

As an interim measure, the husband was ordered to pay his wife more than £4,000 a month in maintenance and to contribute to her legal costs. However, the wife's lawyers said that he was deeply unhappy at the prospect of the divorce taking place in England and had completely ignored those orders and fallen more than £120,000 into arrears. His refusal to engage in the proceedings was said to have extended even to a failure to communicate with his own English solicitors.

The wife had been left in a state of near penury, unable to pay her utility bills or rent. Her lack of funds meant that she would be unable to pay solicitors and barristers to represent her in the proceedings. The husband had been granted permission to appeal against the jurisdiction ruling, but the wife's legal team argued that it would be an affront to justice for the appeal to proceed given his ongoing contempt in failing to obey court orders.

Following a hearing at which the husband was neither present nor represented, the Court of Appeal gave him two weeks to pay more than £100,000 towards his wife's legal costs. The Court warned him that, if he failed to do so, his appeal would be automatically dismissed and the way would be open for his wife to press ahead with the divorce in England.

For help and advice please contact Mauro Vinti, M.Vinti@SydneyMitchell.co.uk  on 0808 166 8860.

It is commonplace for one spouse to control the family finances and, while relations are amicable, this usually causes few issues. However, if the relationship falls apart and separation or divorce is in train, this is often no longer the case.

When a spouse attempts to put pressure on their estranged partner by denying them access to funding to cover their legal fees, this can certainly be a problem, but as a recent case shows, the courts take a dim view of those who seek to deny legal representation to others. The solution was novel and likely to prove effective.

The case in question reached the Family Court after the husband had dragged his feet over filing the required statement of financial means (Form E). Two months after the expiry of the extension date for producing the statement, it had still not been submitted, leading the judge to comment that 'the considerable delay in producing the Form E after two earlier consent orders setting a timetable for its production is not excusable'. This is the sort of comment that seldom presages good news for the client about whom it is made.

The ire of the Court was further stirred up by the fact that the husband (a wealthy Omani) was some £100,000 behind with the maintenance payments he had been ordered to make. Nor had he made the payments ordered for his wife's own legal representation – some £120,000 – whilst having paid his own solicitors in the region of £95,000.

The judge's solution was strict. He issued an injunction against the husband, banning him from paying anything further to his solicitors until he had cleared the arrears due to his wife and paid pound for pound to her any legal costs he had paid to his (or any other) solicitors.

If you are struggling to get others to comply with their obligations to you or orders of the court, contact us for advice.

For help and advice please contact Karen Moores, k.moores@sydneymitchell.co.uk on 0808 166 5638.