(H = Husband – W = Wife)
Ann acted for H. The parties had been married for many years, but the Husband had formed a new relationship and wished to move abroad. His work commitments required that he leave the UK within a very short period of time and achieving a resolution before he departed was extremely important to Ann’s client. W had little income and some pension provision. H had a reasonable pension but his income was variable and not easily predicted.
The matter was dealt with using the Collaborative Law process. In accordance with Collaborative Law principles, H and W agreed that they would exclude contested Court proceedings and they would deal amicably with Ann and W’s lawyer in order to reach a satisfactory resolution for both H and W. With the assistance of Ann’s Collaborative Law colleague acting for W, we were successful in guiding the parties to a settlement they were both content to accept after only two meetings.
As W did not wish to pursue divorce proceedings at the time, the parties entered into a Separation Agreement. Ann was therefore able to conclude matters satisfactorily for H before his departure overseas and at considerably less cost than would have been required with protracted negotiations or indeed contested Court proceedings.
H = Husband - W = Wife
I acted for H in this case having been instructed in place of solicitors he had used for his divorce, financial and Children Act matters up to that point. H and W had two children who lived with W and who saw H from time to time. H understood well the paramount importance of putting the children’s needs first and instructed me to negotiate with W’s solicitor to develop and improve contact with his 2 children with a view to achieving shared residence. H did not want to go down the route of an application to Court to settle matters as he was mindful of the costs that could involve and the difficulties of dealing with a case concerning children in a Court environment. This case was assisted greatly by the balanced and considerate involvement of W’s solicitor who worked closely with W to address her concerns. After a matter of months, H and W were able to liaise directly in matters concerning the children without further need for solicitors and reached agreement as to a shared residence arrangement for the children on a civilised and mutually respectful basis. The outcome of this case achieved H’s hopes for increased contact and residence arrangements but also improved communications between him and W for the future. When parties involved with children are able to concentrate on their children’s needs and communicate directly with each other, solutions can be effective, lasting and more easily reached.
H = Husband - W = Wife
I acted for W in this case who had been divorced from H some years previously and was awarded child and spousal maintenance at that time. W was not concerned to increase the level of the spousal maintenance payments but simply to ensure that they were reinstated as H had discontinued payments to her. I corresponded with H’s solicitors for some while, openly answering their questions with every intention of reaching a prompt agreement for the benefit of both parties, thereby avoiding the need to go to Court. W was in increasingly poor health and considerable arrears in maintenance payments were building up. It became clear that matters would not be resolved without an application to Court and I made an application, therefore, to the Magistrates’ Court to register the Maintenance Order as a debt. H then promptly attended to settling the arrears of maintenance due and reinstated spousal maintenance. This outcome delivered precisely the financial security which W sought and needed whilst keeping costs down as far as possible. Whilst it is regrettable when parties cannot settle matters on an amicable basis, it is important that, as in this case, prompt and decisive action is taken when needed.
(H = Husband – W = Wife)
Ann acted for H who had a life interest for himself and his heirs in a local tenanted farm. The farm land was covered by two separate agricultural tenancy agreements, with two separate landlords. One landlord was happy to buy the land subject to his tenancy agreement from H, but the other landlord (comprising a number of offshore trustees) was not interested in buying the remainder.
There was no option to sell the property on the open market. H’s son was not interested in carrying on the farm and the business. The question arose therefore as to how to value H’s interest in the remaining land and W initially argued that there must be a value to the retained tenancy.
With the assistance of expert evidence secured for H from a professional valuer, Ann was able to successfully argue that there was no particular value to the tenancy at all and the case was resolved without the need for protracted and costly Court proceedings and settled on the basis of the remaining assets available to the parties.
(H = Husband – W = Wife)
Ann acted for H in respect of a maintenance order which had been secured some years ago by his previous solicitors. H’s circumstances had changed such that he simply could not afford to continue with the level of maintenance previously ordered and, despite his best attempts to negotiate direct with his former W, she would simply not accept any reduction and she pursued enforcement proceedings in H’s local Magistrate’s Court. After two unsuccessful attempts to represent himself in those proceedings, H sought Ann’s assistance. Ann helped him to correctly complete his required Schedule of Outgoings (to reflect his true financial position) and also equipped him with information regarding the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency, which in the circumstances, was available as a forum with which to switch the child maintenance payments for his long term future benefit. H took that option straight away, which had the effect of then cancelling and superseding the existing Court Order and reducing his monthly payments to an appropriate level. The only remaining aspect to be dealt with was the arrears that had accrued, which H was able to successfully negotiate at his next Court appearance.
With extremely little cost therefore in terms of Ann’s involvement, Ann was able to resolve the Husband’s issues as to his Wife’s intransigence over the ongoing maintenance payments, the Court’s difficulty in accepting that his circumstances had changed significantly and to allow him to conclude the case at an early opportunity.
H = Husband - W = Wife
I acted for H in this case which started out with straightforward instructions to act in the parties’ divorce and related financial matters. Both parties were foreign nationals who were working in the UK and had both worked and lived in various countries around the world. W used solicitors on occasion and also, on occasion, acted for herself. As the credit crunch worsened, the parties’ principal asset, the matrimonial home, dropped in value and considerable negotiation was required to broker an agreement between the parties for the sharing of assets. To move matters forward, the financial aspect of the divorce was placed before the Court and I worked closely with H’s barrister, who was fluent in H’s mother tongue. The parties finally reached agreement in this matter and H was pleased that he retained the former matrimonial home with no ongoing maintenance obligation to his former wife. I was later involved with paperwork to progress H’s divorce abroad in order that he could remarry. The key issue in this case was agreeing the extent and value of the parties’ assets. Once parties have a clear sense of what they can achieve financially on divorce, a realistic outcome is more likely to follow.