Isn’t summer supposed to be a quiet time?  Frank Arndt, who heads Stowe Family Law’s international family law department, seems to be busier than ever – and not just because his team has recently been instructed in some very interesting new cases.

When the second wife of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky was granted a “quickie divorce” at the High Court last week, Frank was contacted by a number of journalists for expert comment and analysis. His comments, about the Berezovsky case and also about the UK’s much vaunted reputation as the “divorce capital of the world”, have since appeared as far afield as Russia and Australia!

Divorce tourists face judicial rethink

Frank Arndt, head of international practice at Stowe Family Law, said: “There is a perception that wives can achieve a fairer settlement in England and importantly there are obligations here for full and frank disclosure of assets belonging to one party, which there may not be in some countries. Often husbands see divorce as a business deal and look at which jurisdiction is best.” Continue reading»

Boris Berezovsky’s wife granted “quickie divorce”

Frank Arndt, a lawyer at Stowe Family Law, which specialises in big money divorces, said: ”The Berezovskys were married for 18 years, have two teenage children and, although estimates of the couple’s fortune vary, it is indeed likely that any settlement eventually awarded to Mrs Berezovsky will dwarf the £48 million awarded to Beverley Charman in 2008.” Continue reading»

London seals reputation as divorce capital as oligarch faces £100 million payout to ex-wife

[Frank] Arndt said Berezovsky may use what is known in the legal profession as the “stellar or genius” argument used by Charman, in which he said his wife had made no financial contribution to the fortune he had built up in the insurance market during their marriage. His case resulted in a discount from the 50:50 position: a high court judge ruled Charman should have 63.5% of the couple’s wealth rather than half because of his special contribution to building it up and because the assets he was keeping were riskier than those which went to his wife.” Continue reading»

Our offices in Yorkshire and Cheshire are busier than ever and our newest office, off High Holborn, is set to open early next year.  We are looking for senior solicitors to join our teams in all these locations and, since I know that plenty of lawyers read this blog, I thought that it would be a great place to start!

Our locations

I have written before about how blessed I feel to live in such a beautiful part of the world, and how much I enjoy beginning every week with my drive into Harrogate. The town is at the gateway to the Yorkshire Dales and our Harrogate office (above) is the town’s former courthouse. It is a gorgeous old building in the town centre.

Our office in Hale, meanwhile, is the Camellia Building on Oxford Road. Stowe Family Law expanded into Cheshire after we observed that increased numbers of clients were flying into Manchester Airport and then making the trip across the Pennines so that they could see us. Our Cheshire office opened in 2008 and quickly became popular with clients from Hale, Altrincham, Manchester and beyond.

As for London: we are on track to open our Fulwood Place office in early 2011, and we are looking forward to it. Continue reading »

A client recently paid me a very kind but rather unusual compliment.

“Every time I see you”, she said, “you smile at me – and it isn’t just any old smile, but a bright, confident one.”

Apparently my smile brightens her day and does wonders for both her confidence and her hopes for her case.

How nice is that? Apparently I was a smiley baby – and I have been smiling at people ever since. I always used to smile at people when I was a runner. In Yorkshire, my fellow runners always smiled back. Mind you, in London I used to get startled looks in response – and in New York I was stared at like I was a weirdo! So no more smiles there then…

The client’s comments made my day and gave me pause for thought, especially as she went on to add that she recently stopped going to a particular dentist because although the dentist was undoubtedly competent, she never, ever smiled. My client said that she always left the dentist feeling tense and sometimes miserable, not because of the treatment but because of the unsmiling dentist’s terse manner. I know the dentist to whom she was referring and I agree that she gives the impression of being overly serious. However I am equally certain that the dentist would be shocked and horrified if she knew that people thought of her in such a way.

I was thinking about this yesterday as I was having a mug of coffee, relaxing after cycling a record (for me) 30 km on the Wattbike and throwing 16 kg kettlebells some 120 times!  I was reading about the presenter Selina Scott’s latest complaint against the BBC, whom she accuses of “blatant and sometimes malign ageism and sexism. I don’t agree. Continue reading »

As a family lawyer, I like to think there is no dispute for which a solution cannot be found. No matter how polarised the clients are, and no matter how contrasting their arguments may be, at some point their disputes can and will be resolved.

This week at Stowe Family Law, for example, our children lawyers have been especially busy. We have been instructed in a number of contact and residence disputes.  Trying to conciliate the parents’ disputes, bringing them together peaceably for the sake of their children, can be challenging work – and these are challenges that our children lawyers face day in, day out. As you can imagine, they often encounter hostility and intransigence – but they never give up.  Our children’s department seems to have endless patience and sufficient stamina to keep plugging away. They seek to obtain resolutions to disputes, which may include where the children will live, sometimes the country in which the children will live, the time that each parent will spend with the children and so on. In children cases, the children’s welfare – not the parents’ – is paramount.

Every month, I review every client’s file. I am checking the legal content, but files can also begin to resemble serialised novels, with new instalments monthly. I am often anxious to know whether one case or another has been resolved – and if so, on what terms. Some cases settle and I am able to read the terms of the deal. Others continue, destined perhaps for court, but more likely edging towards settlements. Those cases reaching a full-blown hearing are likely to involve very difficult issues, such as mental illness or allegations of abuse. A judge may have to decide where a child should live and whether a child should see a parent at all.  Fortunately such cases are rare. The majority of cases feature polarised parents who begin at different ends of the spectrum and end up somewhere in the middle.

This week, however, the most unpleasant case of polarisation that I encountered had nothing to do with a child dispute. In fact, it involved a group of people with whom I have had few dealings before now. They are travellers, living on a site in Essex. By chance, I met some of them this week. Continue reading »

This week’s edition of The Sunday Times carried a lurid headline, “An end to the goldmine divorce”, with accompanying pictures of the heiress Katrin Radmacher and her former husband Nicolas Granatino.  The latter couple’s spectacular and hard fought case involving the validity of a prenuptial agreement, made in Germany between a German and French national living in this country, is due to be the subject of a judgement by the judges of our Supreme Court , which is expected to give a general steer about the validity of prenuptial agreements in England and Wales.

The Law Commission, which recommends potential changes in the law to government, is also currently considering this area of the law. Professor Elizabeth Cooke of the Law Commission has now confirmed that various options will be put forward to Government, including recognition of prenuptial and postnuptial agreements and that the report will be accompanied by a draft bill for consideration by Parliament.

The argument in favour of change, according to her, is that people are being deterred from marriage by big pay-outs under the current law, and she states: “There is a certain amount of financial carnage when people get divorced. A well drawn up prenup can give greater predictability”.

With great respect to Professor Cooke, I do not think it is appropriate to describe a financial settlement between the parties as “carnage”. Nor do I agree with the argument that by signing a prenup, hundreds of thousands of people in this country who currently aren’t getting married will be heading off to the altar.

Couples are deliberately choosing not to marry, not because of the law, or any change to the law as envisaged, but because society has irreparably changed. Most people now aren’t now marrying too young or immaturely and then bitterly regretting it– whether shortly afterwards or years later. They aren’t leaping into the legalities until they are absolutely sure that they are making the right decision. Others that don’t marry, including some of those who are dependent upon state benefits, won’t marry either – with or without this proposed change in legislation.

I will be exploring the subject of prenuptial agreements in greater detail in a later post.

It is often said that the world is now a smaller place, and recent events have had me thinking about this throwaway phrase. In 2010, are we really more of a “global community” than ever before?

Yesterday, almost every male in our office was joyfully whistling “Viva Espana” as he passed by the office of Frank Arndt, our German partner.  James Thornton, who shares a room with Frank, had earlier been on Radio York delightedly trumpeting the Spanish victory against Germany in the World Cup.

Andrew Williams, our Chief Executive, is doubly delighted because he has drawn Spain in the firm’s sweepstake. Jo Childs, Frank’s secretary, has drawn Holland – and with Spain and Holland preparing to play in the World Cup final, the two of them are now at loggerheads. Andrew’s offer to share the winnings has been firmly rejected. It’s war!

I drew Italy. On the day of the fateful game against Slovakia I kept getting gleeful texts from my son Ben.

The first read, No chance.

The second: Definitely no chance.

Finally: You’ve lost.

Yes, I am sorry to say that Italy let me down and I have lost my £1 stake. But right now, having obtained his first class honours degree in law, Ben can do no wrong. (As if he ever could!) How fortunate we are to have our families and friends, with whom we can laugh.

This week I have also been reading of another woman’s son: a brave, desperate man who loves his mother so dearly that he has risked terrible danger by turning to our “global community” for assistance. Reading of the disgusting and cruel behaviour that his family has endured, and continues to endure, tears my heart to pieces.

His name is Sajad Ghadarzade, he is 22-years-old and his family lives in Iran. He has been appealing to international human rights groups after his mother, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, was charged with adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. Continue reading »

Moving on after divorce is more easily said than done, and as a family lawyer I see many clients at different stages of this process. Getting divorced is a traumatic and stressful period for both parties, no matter who is at fault or why the marriage broke down. However, there is nothing more satisfying (other than getting  a good deal!) than seeing a client move on from thinking their world is at an end, to a point where they can at least see light at the end of the tunnel.

So I have enjoyed reading a post by an American blogger who is marking one year since her own divorce was finalised. D-Day and 100 Divorce Perks is an essential read for anyone going through a divorce who is struggling to look to the future.

This writer is honest about the “perks”, which include realising the mistakes that she made during the marriage and why life without her husband has also been positive, despite the obvious loss of the person with whom she thought she would spend the rest of her life. She has re-evaluated her life and is looking to the future. She admits herself that she could easily have written “100 downsides to this whole scene”, but is instead is choosing not be a victim.

If you are recently divorced – or even if you are simply considering divorce – I recommend her blog, which is called Now Is Good. The writer has a really refreshing take on her own life experiences. Her marriage broke down after her husband had an affair, but she has put a lot of energy into moving onwards and upwards.

Many items on her list are light-hearted: Continue reading »

Over the past couple of weeks, the legal press has been buzzing with news of the demise of Halliwells, a large firm of solicitors based in Manchester. I was saddened to read about the firm’s fate. However I have been horrified by some of the accompanying press commentary, which includes one piece headlined Halliwells: Dangerous Ambition. Why pick over others’ setbacks and dashed hopes with such glee, as if they were fresh bones? Who does that serve?

In Halliwells’ case, it would seem that the firm’s relocation to the expensive Spinningfields development in Manchester, which attracted a substantial reverse premium, is somehow supposed to remove any sympathy for the firm’s fate. I disagree: this recession is unlike any other since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and many UK firms and businesses have been “caught out” by its size and scale. Halliwells isn’t alone. Others – from corporations and small business to individuals – have suffered too.

It is the human side of the story that saddens me most of all. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that juggernaut firms, including those with juggernaut debts, are made up of people who have lives to lead outside of their busy working weeks. They have families, and they have responsibilities. The trappings of a middle-class lifestyle can include mortgages, debts, credit cards and school fees. These expenses are all perfectly serviceable and not unreasonable in the good times. But in the bad times, entire lives can come crashing down. Continue reading »

A blog reader enquired recently about the cohabitation legislation in Australia, asking: “Are you familiar with it and its effects and what is your opinion?”  This was an interesting request, so I asked Jenny Wilmot, a talented trainee solicitor here at Stowe Family Law and Christopher Othen, a senior associate at Sydney family law firm Barkus Doolan Kelly, to take a closer look.  Many thanks to both. Jenny has written a new post about their conclusions.

In a previous post, Cohabitation: England v Scotland, I predicted that the rather radical Cohabitation Bill put forward by Lord Lester in 2008 may have been too extreme for our government to accept into our legislation. I based this upon the fears that had arisen around the more moderate recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2007.

Had it been passed, the Cohabitation Bill would have given greater statutory protection to cohabitants, allowing the court to make a financial order if it felt that it was just and equitable to do so. The court would have had to take into account much of the same factors as it does for couples settling finances after the breakdown of the marriage, including the welfare of any relevant child, the length of cohabitation, contributions of each party (financial or otherwise), income and other financial resources and financial needs and obligations of the parties. Cohabitants would also have been given a chance to “opt out” of this process.

While this rather ballsy attempt by Lord Lester was supported by many family practitioners around the country, it still remains somewhat of a political impossibility for the foreseeable future. For some, the consequences of going further than the Law Commission’s conclusions would be too high.

A look at international variants of cohabitation law, however, can help us to view the situation in England and Wales in context. I have previously written about the Scottish system which does not give separating cohabitants the same rights as divorcing spouses, but does give weight to the fact that couples who have lived together for more than a year may be entitled to some financial rights, when one party has suffered an economic disadvantage due to the separation or if the defender has derived an economic advantage from the applicant’s contributions.

In Australia, cohabitation law goes further still. It has recently been amended following the passing of the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008. Continue reading »

On 15 October 2009 The Times published an article with the headline, Why is it so difficult for law students to get a first? The feature, by Rebecca Attwood, suggested that students reading other subjects are more likely to achieve the highest degree.

That piece was quietly read, noted and bookmarked by one Ben Stowe, known to readers of this blog as my son. Eight months later and just as quietly, without fuss, he sent it to me on my Blackberry to read today.

Ben is also the person whose washing regularly causes hassle for me, arriving as it does in at least three full bags on Saturday mornings, when I’m puffing away on my Wattbike trying to keep fit. But with perhaps more than a little help from my husband, we have managed fine…

When Ben was a little boy, the first hurdle for me (not him) was getting him into the “right” school. We chose it with care; noting how all our friends were competing to get their children into the same place, we put Ben’s name down for Leeds Grammar School when he was all of two weeks old. When I look back I must admit that I entered into the “competitive mummy” thing wholeheartedly. I would notice how every other child was quick to walk, quick to talk and so on. I would also notice, through gritted teeth, how every other mummy used to pretend she wasn’t thrilled to bits with her high achieving toddler when I could see very well that she was.  Ben had other ideas. He wasn’t the slightest bit bothered to compete.  Instead he was a quiet, self-assured boy, who took his time and was disinclined to pit himself against the other children. No matter how much I pushed him to be more assertive as he got older, he just used to mutter, “Mum, you’re embarrassing me!” That was it. He knew me and I knew him. Neither of us changed. Continue reading »