Sharland and Gohil win Supreme Court battle

Two women who claimed that they should receive more money in their divorce settlements after being misled by their ex-husbands have won their Supreme Court fight.

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil each accepted divorce settlements based on false information provided by their ex-husbands and in a three-day hearing, the two ladies asked for their divorce settlements to be set aside on the basis that their husbands had deliberately misled them and the courts during the original hearings.

Ms Sharland agreed what she believed to be a 50/50 split in her divorce settlement after 17 years of marriage, but it later emerged that her ex-husband had deceived her and the courts over the value of his business. Instead of the business being valued at between £31 million and £47 million, it was reported in the financial press as being ready to float at a value of $1 billion (£646 million)

Meanwhile, in 2004, two years after her divorce, Ms Gohil discovered that her husband had not fully disclosed his finances during their divorce, leading her to accept £270,000 and a car as a settlement. He was convicted of fraud offences and jailed in 2010 for ten years. During the course of the criminal trial, further evidence of the extent of his intentional non-disclosure in the original divorce proceedings emerged.

It is believed that the ruling last month could pave the way for more people to renegotiate their divorce settlements.

Link: Supreme Court Gohil and Sharland judgments

Bar Council slams court fees

The chairman of the Bar Council has warned that defendants are being “incentivised” by government-imposed charges to plead guilty rather than risk a costly fight in the crown court.

Alistair MacDonald QC has called on peers to reject the procedure that requires those who plead guilty at a magistrates court to pay £150 but forces those convicted at a crown court to hand over £1,200.

In October, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said that steep rises in criminal and civil court fees were putting access to justice beyond the reach of most people and “imperilling a core principle of Magna Carta.”

The charge, which came into force in April, was introduced by the previous Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling. More than 50 magistrates in England and Wales have already resigned in protest at the charge, according to the Magistrates Association.

Neither judges nor magistrates have any discretion in applying the charge which must be paid by all those who plead guilty or are convicted, on top of any prosecution costs, victims’ surcharge or fines.

In his warning, Macdonald claimed that the charge provided a false incentive. “The financial situation of a defendant cannot be ignored,” he said. “Faced with the prospect of a court charge that could be significantly higher than the penalties for a particular offence, defendants who are innocent may have little choice but to plead guilty simply to avoid the financial risk of having to pay a hefty court fee if they are convicted after a trial.

“No one should be influenced by the extent of a court charge in making their decision about whether to plead guilty or have a trial.” He added: “A parent who steals food as a last resort to feed their children when there has been a glitch in their benefit payments would face exactly the same court charge as a member of a professional shoplifting gang. That cannot be right and the extent of the unfairness of these charges is demonstrated by the fact that 50 magistrates have resigned rather [than] face the prospect of having to order defendants to pay these charges. In at least one case, the magistrate has felt so strongly about the injustice of a charge that he paid the fee out of his own pocket,” the Bar Council chairman said.

Link: The Bar Council

Consumer Rights Act comes into force

Shoppers have been given new rights when purchasing goods following the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 on 1 October.

The Act has been designed to reinforce shopper’s rights when it comes to obtaining refunds or replacements for substandard goods and services or unfair terms.

Under the Act, consumers now have 30 days to request a replacement or full refund for a faulty item, be it a physical or digital purchase, such as e-books, games, music or movies.

To assist consumers in a dispute, certified Alternative Dispute Resolution providers will now be available as a quicker and cheaper alternative to pursuing compensation through the courts.

However, for those who do opt to enter the courts, there is also the alternative of bringing a ‘class action’, making it far easier for groups of consumers to seek compensation from firms that have fixed prices.

Previously, groups of consumers or small and medium-sized businesses who wanted to take action against companies that fixed the price of goods or services had to either ‘opt in’ to the action or bring a claim in their own name, but the new rules allow them to ‘opt out’ meaning everyone affected is automatically a member of the ‘class’ which is suing.

Business Minister, Nick Boles said: "Whether it’s downloading music or buying a fridge freezer, the Consumer Rights Act makes it easier to understand your rights.

"These changes will also simplify the law for businesses so they can spend less time worrying about unclear and unwieldy regulations."

Figures from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) show consumers experienced more than 18 million problems with goods and services in the 12 months to the middle of last year, costing them around £4.15 billion.

These new measure are predicted to boost the economy by £4 billion over the next decade by streamlining eight pieces of complicated legislation into one concise law.

Resolution calls for law to catch up with cohabitation boom

Family law organisation, Resolution, has called for more action to be taken on improving the legal rights of cohabiting couples, following new research that shows a boom in the number of unmarried people living together.

Recently released data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that around one in eight adults in England and Wales are unmarried and living with a partner.

In response, Resolution chair, Jo Edwards said: “Cohabitation is the fastest growing type of relationship in the country, with the ONS finding that almost 12 per cent of the population are living with a partner without being married.

“Despite this, the law doesn’t give people in this type of relationship any meaningful legal protection if they separate or if one of them dies. In this, we lag far behind many other developed countries.”

She added that the research showed that the law had to keep up with our own changing society and that there was a real need to introduce legal recognition of cohabitees to “prevent continuing injustice.”

Resolution have said that they would like to see the creation of new laws to create legal rights for cohabiting couples and secure fair outcomes during separation or following the death of one partner.

Under their own proposals, cohabitants meeting eligibility criteria indicating a committed relationship would have a right to apply for certain financial orders if they separate. This right would be automatic unless the couple chooses to ‘opt out’.

Link: Resolution

Legal rights ‘meaningless’ following court fee hikes

The Law Society has called on the Government to halt any future increase to court fees after they claim previous hikes failed to deliver tangible improvements in the court service or protect access to justice.

Their comments come as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) completes its consultation on lifting the current cap on court fees, which has been met with contempt by members of the legal profession.

Speaking last month, the Law Society’s president, Jonathan Smithers, said: “There has been no assessment of the impact of increases, just six months ago, of more than 600 per cent.

“Raising the fees further may render ordinary people’s legal rights meaningless because they simply would not be able to afford to enforce them.”

The Law Society repeated its concerns for higher fees for divorce claims. The current estimated cost of such proceedings, according to the MoJ’s own figures, is £270. However, the Government has announced proposals to increase the charge to £550.

The Society has also said that the increase in court fees would have a disproportionate effect on small and medium sized businesses, doubling some fees to £20,000.

CPS pledges crackdown on ‘revenge porn’

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) says it is committed to tackling “revenge porn” and has urged victims of the crime to come forward.

The call came following the first conviction in the West Midlands under the new revenge pornography offence created in April this year.

The 25-year-old man admitted sending the victim a Facebook message from a false account using a private sexual photograph of the victim as his profile picture, without her consent. At Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court on 13 August, he was sentenced to a 12-month community order, fined and ordered to pay costs.

Lionel Idan, deputy chief crown prosecutor from West Midlands CPS said: “This deliberate and callous act was intended to cause the victim maximum distress, humiliation and embarrassment.

“Such criminal actions will not be tolerated by the CPS and the police and we will do everything in our power to obtain justice for victims of this crime by robustly prosecuting all those who engage in such malicious activity.

“I urge anyone who has been a victim of such a crime to report it to the police and to help us bring such offenders to justice.”

In April, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 created the new criminal offence of revenge pornography, involving the disclosure of private sexual photographs and films without the consent of an individual who appears in them and with the intent to cause that person distress.

Someone convicted of the offence could face up to two years in prison and receive a fine.

Study to turn spotlight on divorce

A major study is to examine current law on the grounds for divorce and civil partnership dissolution and whether it needs reform.

Resolution, an organisation of lawyers that promotes a constructive, non-confrontational approach to resolving family law issues, announced on 25 August that the Nuffield Foundation charitable trust is to fund a two-year research project examining the issue.

The organisation said that the long delays associated with no fault grounds for divorce – either a two-year separation with both parties’ agreement or a five-year separation if one partner does not agree – meant there was heavy reliance on the fault-based grounds of behaviour, adultery and desertion. In 2012, 48 per cent of divorces were granted on the basis of behaviour and 14 per cent on adultery.

Resolution said: “We are concerned that petitions that rely on apportioning some blame risk creating or inflaming conflict and thus undermining the opportunity for people to resolve disputes outside of court.”

It said that as long ago as 1990, the Law Commission – the body that reviews and makes recommendations for reform of the law – had highlighted problems with fault-based divorce, including that the law was confusing, created unnecessary hostility, made things worse for children by increasing parental conflict and did nothing to save marriages.

The project will include a survey exploring public attitudes to the grounds for divorce and reform of the law, research into the way the courts investigate divorce petitions alleging adultery or unreasonable behaviour and exploring how divorce petitions are produced and what effect they have on the people involved. The survey results will be available early next year and the outcome of the other studies by 2017.

Workers ‘priced out of justice by employment tribunal fees’

The body that represents solicitors in England and Wales has called for “fair and affordable” employment tribunals.

The call came from the Law Society after Ministry of Justice figures revealed that the number of employment tribunal cases has fallen by more than 60 per cent in the two years since charges were introduced for bringing a case against an employer, with the aim of transferring the cost of tribunals to users and encouraging employers and employees to resolve disputes more informally.

Depending on the type of case, it costs either £160 or £250 to lodge an employment tribunal claim, with a further fee of either £230 or £950 if the case goes ahead, making a total of either £390 or £1,200.

The lower costs apply to cases involving issues including unpaid wages or breach of contract and the higher fees in situations such as unfair dismissal and discrimination.

The Law Society warned on 29 July that access to justice on employment matters was now limited to people able to afford tribunal fees. President Jonathan Smithers said: “The £1,200 that a claimant must now pay for most types of cases is close to the average monthly salary, putting a tribunal well beyond the reach of many people, particularly those on lower incomes.

“Everyone needs employment tribunals that are fair and affordable. They must work for both employers and employees.”

The Law Society said it would be contributing to a Ministry of Justice review of the impact of the introduction of the fees, announced in June.

Axe set to fall on local courts

Local people are being asked for their views on plans to close almost 100 courts in England and Wales.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service, the body that manages the operation of courts and tribunals in England and Wales, launched a consultation on its proposals to shut 91 courts, 57 of them magistrates’ courts, on 16 July.

The service, which is responsible for 460 court and tribunal buildings, plus other administrative and support buildings, said: “The courts and tribunals estate costs taxpayers approximately £500 million each year.

“Last year over a third of all courts and tribunals were empty for more than 50 per cent of their available hearing time. This consultation puts forward proposals that aim to reduce surplus capacity by closing those courts and tribunals that are unused or underused, or that are simply unsuitable for the services we need to provide from them.

“This consultation is an opportunity to stand back and reconsider the existing arrangements and to rationalise the estate so that best value for money is provided for users and taxpayers alike.”

The service said that after the changes, a court would still be within an hour’s car journey for more than 95 per cent of people and a tribunal for 83 per cent of people.

It added: “To ensure that access to justice is maintained, even in more rural locations, we are committed to providing alternative ways for users to access our services. That can mean using civic and other public buildings, such as town halls, for hearings instead of underused, poorly-maintained permanent courts.”

The proposals have attracted opposition in areas where courts are set to close. Dartford MP Gareth Johnson said that if Dartford Magistrates’ Court in Kent were to close as proposed, it would cause “significant difficulties for witnesses, police officers and other court users.”

And magistrates are campaigning against the closure of Workington Magistrates’ Court, whichwould mean defendants and witnesses from west Cumbria having to travel to Carlisle, with round trips of up to 90 miles.

The consultation closes on 8 October.

Solicitors given guidance on vulnerable clients

The body that represents solicitors in England and Wales has issued new guidance to help solicitors meet the needs of clients with physical and learning disabilities and mental health problems.

The Law Society practice note on vulnerable clients was issued on 2 July following calls from law firms and other organisations, including learning disability charity Mencap. The guidance aims to help solicitors:

• identify vulnerable clients and their needs at an early stage
• communicate with them more effectively
• work with third parties, including advocates and carers
• help clients to achieve the best possible legal outcomes.

The guidance uses the term ‘vulnerable’ to describe a range of situations that could place a client at a disadvantage in accessing legal services, and focuses on:

• clients who have capacity to make decisions and provide instructions, but who require support to use a solicitor’s services and give instructions
• clients who lack mental capacity to make decisions, for whom a range of statutory and other safeguards must be followed
• clients who are vulnerable to undue influence or duress.

Law Society president Andrew Caplen said: “Vulnerable people face particular obstacles in accessing justice, including getting help from a solicitor. We have produced this important guidance to support our members and to help their clients to get the legal advice and tailored support that they need.”

Research by the Law Society at the end of 2014 showed that nearly two-thirds of firms (59 per cent) had provided legal services to vulnerable clients in the preceding 12 months.