A split hearing can be summarised as a hearing divided into two parts. During the first part the court makes findings of fact on issues identified by the parties or the court. During the second part the court, drawing upon the findings it has made, decides the case.

When a split hearing takes place, it is usually in the context of a contact or residence dispute between parents, with one party alleging domestic violence as a reason for refusing to allow contact with a child from the relationship.

Generally it has been the practice that the allegation must be dealt with, separately from the children matter, before the court can resume consideration of the contact or residence dispute. A split hearing can thus cause delay and expense for both parties – but change is in the air.

In one of his first announcements since becoming President of the Family Division in April 2010, Lord Justice Wall recently gave new practice guidance to judges and magistrates on the occasions when it is appropriate to direct a split hearing or conduct a finding of fact hearing in private and public law family proceedings. Continue reading »

This post won Family Lore’s Post of the Month Award for July 2010.

Yesterday the Court of Appeal made a landmark ruling that has been described as a “cheat’s charter”. You can read the details here. I must warn you in advance that this is a lengthy post; however I would like to explore the horrifying implications of this ruling for divorce cases up and down the country. We will begin with an ordinary couple, and we’ll call them Jim and Mary.

Jim is a postman. He is married to Mary, a factory worker on a production line who gets paid £250 in cash every week. He doesn’t know what she does with her money. Mary decides to divorce Jim after 25 years of marriage. She has started an affair with Fred, his best mate. Jim is distraught. Frantic, he comes across 10 bank books and some Premium Bonds buried under some papers she has kept in her drawer by the bed. There is no lock on the bedside drawer and after 25 years, Jim knows exactly where to look. He can see that Mary has been quite cute, and the bank books show that she has managed to save a total of £50k – every penny she has earned in her working life – while he has supported her and their children. He notices she has even had a few wins on the Premium Bonds, about which he never knew. Furious, he phones his solicitor John, to tell him what he has discovered.

“She has £50,000!” he tells John, totally shocked by the discovery. “Ten bank books, wins on the Premium Bonds – I never knew! She was living off my money and all the time she was squirrelling away her own. Can I bring a copy of everything that’s here over to you?”

This time two days ago John would have said of course you can. Today he can’t. Because if he does he may be opening himself up to a civil claim against him and his firm by Mary, for breach of confidence and more besides. He wouldn’t be receiving the copy documents innocently. He would know that Mary doesn’t know he has them. And he would know she wouldn’t be best pleased about it. So even though John is acting as a solicitor in Jim’s best interests and putting the best case he can to the court – which is what Jim is paying him for – Mary could sue him.

“I’m afraid you can’t bring copies over” he tells John. “And what’s more, you can’t copy the bank books – or anything else for that matter.” Continue reading »

As previously noted, many first-time visitors to this blog arrive here after typing their questions about divorce and family law directly into Google and other search engines. I also receive a number of reader enquiries via the comments section and the Contact Me page.

If you are a reader with a question about divorce and you would like a swift answer, join me on The Times website tomorrow (Thursday 29 July) for a Live Q&A during which I’ll be answering questions about all aspects of family law and finance.

If you prefer, you can submit your question in advance by adding it to the comments section on the website’s Live Q&A page. (The Times website is subscription-only, but can currently be accessed for £1 for 30 days.)

You can access the Live Q&A here. I will answer any question that you have, no matter how big or how small, so ask away!

UPDATE: it was a lively Q&A and you can view it here.

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»

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 »

Suppose that you are going through a very nasty financial case in the course of your divorce.

Suppose that your former spouse is behaving very badly during this process.

Suppose you both know that the court is likely to make the usual costs order in the case, with each side being asked to pay their own costs.

The party who decides to behave badly decides there is not much to lose. This party takes a gamble and increases their own costs in an effort to minimise the eventual settlement, safe in the knowledge that he or she will not have to pay the costs of the other side.

On the other side the frustration is clear. Costs are going through the roof and a nasty game is being played out. It is extremely difficult to find out what the opposing spouse is worth at all. Smokescreens and mirrors prevent anything other than a lengthy and convoluted legal process. The stronger spouse, confident the weaker one is getting nowhere, makes derisory offers.

It is pretty clear to all concerned that the intention (usually unspoken, but obvious nevertheless) is to rack up costs as much as possible, raise as many obstacles as possible to avoid disclosure, to avoid coming to the table and in general, to make life as hard as possible so that those derisory offers become more “palatable” as an end to this protracted saga.

This type of behaviour is not uncommon, especially when a spouse has much to lose. One of the worst examples I encountered recently was a client who told me her husband had telephoned the solicitor she had previously instructed, and personally threatened him and his firm with ruin if they touched her case. When she instructed another firm, he did exactly the same.

Suppose you are at your wits end, you are approaching court and you believe that you will ultimately succeed. However your costs have cleaned out all your savings. You desperately need to have your legal costs met, or your struggle will have been in vain. What can you do about it? How can you make the court depart from the normal “no order” principle?

Here is my advice: Continue reading »

Divorce lawyers are used to changing sides. During a typical day, I might see a wife whose husband has left her for another woman. Afterwards I might advise a husband who has left his own wife for another woman. Then I might see a woman who is leaving her husband for another man. Finally, a husband whose wife has left him. I advise them all; it is second nature to me now. Overall I believe that such experiences give me a balanced view. I can give good, objective advice because my recommendations are based on knowledge that comes with having acted for different people caught up in different situations.

Sometimes the media also become involved in my cases. I know and have worked with a number of journalists, and I admire them greatly – but sometimes I find that others accept a “good story” in good faith, regardless of its veracity. After all, it is easy to simply reproduce a press release.

Not so long ago I read a story about one of my own clients. The story had cascaded across the media and I knew for certain that it painted a picture of my client and a particular situation that was, frankly, erroneous. My client declined to respond and faced this unwanted media attention with great courage and dignity.

At Stowe Family Law we regard client confidentiality as paramount; elsewhere, however, the circulation of press releases by or on behalf of clients going through divorce appears to be growing. In my experience, the courts are becoming wise to this and pay little attention to it. In my client’s case, that certainly happened. Continue reading »

One of the saddest realities of family litigation is that a death is not necessarily the end of the arguments. The majority of family litigation concerns a fair division of the property acquired during a relationship, and how to provide for the futures of a couple who have separated.  It includes how to look after any children that they have had together.  A small minority of cases, however, arise after somebody’s death.  Sometimes there are question marks over whether or not the Will left behind was properly executed.  More commonly, there can be an issue about whether or not the Will (or where there is no Will, the rules of intestacy) makes reasonable provision for the deceased’s family and dependants.

Of all the disputes we deal with, I have to say that these cases come close to being the saddest.  Only cases about the care of children consistently depress practitioners more.

There are two great myths about what happens with someone’s property after they die.

Myth 1 – Whatever is in the Will is sacrosanct.

“If you haven’t been left anything, there is nothing you can do.” Wrong!  1975 saw the passing of the catchily titled Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act.  Although it does not trip off the tongue easily, it is an important piece of legislation.  Parliament recognised that sometimes the Wills made by people, or the rules of intestacy when no Will was made, could simply be too harsh to the people left behind.  Why should a husband or wife of many years receive next to nothing at the deceased’s whim?  Why should somebody be left to depend on state benefits when actually there was plenty of money or property, but it was being left to somebody else?  One of the purposes of government is to deliver outcomes that are just and fair.  Parliament therefore acted to give the courts the power to deal with situations that were plainly unfair. Continue reading »

Frank Arndt, the Head of our International Family Law Unit at Stowe Family Law, recently attended an international family law conference in Malaga, Spain. While he was there, Frank was interviewed by the editor of Sur in English – one of that region’s most popular English language publications – about expat divorce and “forum shopping”. The feature appears in today’s print edition.

SPOUSES WHO GO FORUM SHOPPING FOR DIVORCE

By Liz Parry

If you think your marriage may be on the rocks, think twice about moving to another country, says Frank Arndt

It is well known that two of the most stressful things in life are getting divorced, and moving house.

When the move is to a different country to start a new life in the sun with your partner, though, it seems reasonable to think that at least it is only the stress of moving you are going to face, and divorce is unlikely to be on the cards in the near future. But is this so? According to Frank Arndt, who was in Malaga last week for a meeting of Spanish and British lawyers, all may not be as it seems.

Frank, who works for the Stowe Family Law firm in the UK, specialises in transnational family litigation. Because laws and procedures vary so much from one country to another, some of the more wily would-be litigants, including those who are intent on getting divorced, are going “forum shopping” – filing the case in the jurisdiction most likely to find in their favour and getting a head start on the unsuspecting party. By way of illustration he describes the case of a wealthy man who lured his wife and children to live in South Africa and then divorced her and returned to the UK leaving her stranded thousands of miles away, with children who could not be moved. Continue reading »

Local and national newspapers are filled with page after page of houses that are failing to sell. Those who don’t have to sell simply aren’t – it is a buyer’s market and the price a seller asks for is unlikely to be what they receive.  At Stowe Family Law we are witnessing how the recession-hit property market is affecting clients who are separating or divorcing.

Saturday’s Daily Telegraph confirmed that not only have prices which rose slightly in 2009 begun to fall back, but also that further falls are on their way and that there won’t be any upwards movement in the market for some time to come.

Many sellers, especially those going through divorce, seem to believe that their home is worth what it was two years ago when the market was still inflated. Divorcing couples have negotiated and reached a settlement based on a false premise and are coming unstuck when they realise that their property will not fetch the figure on which they based their agreement.

I have been compiling advice for those who are trying to sell property in a difficult market – see the list of tips at the bottom of this post. Continue reading »