Some recent, and surprising, court decisions from offshore jurisdictions, namely Bermuda and Jersey, demonstrate the fluctuating levels of cooperation that the English family courts can expect to receive in divorce cases.

In English divorces when there are offshore assets, often held in offshore trusts, it is common for wives to meet with resistance when they try to find out information about those assets or trusts from their husband.

One way of remedying this is by issuing Letters of Request. These are letters from an English court to the appropriate authority (usually a court) in the other jurisdiction requesting information about the assets or trusts held in that country. The letter is written by your solicitors, who then apply to the English court for its approval and to request that it is sent. The English court can, and frequently does, amend the content of the letter.

After receiving the letter the authority in that other jurisdiction can choose to do three things: Continue reading »

On Friday I enjoyed the company of family lawyers from around Europe. We had gathered in Paris for the opening of the law firm Cabinet CBBC (formerly the Cabinet Veronique Chauveau). With so many of us gathered in one place, the talk turned to family law – and how we are separated by our respective countries’ laws, customs and conventions.

Within the European Union, transnational family law does not operate as smoothly as one might reasonably expect, despite the determination to create a genuine area of freedom, security and justice whereby decisions taken in one member state are recognised and enforced throughout the EU.  Member states operate different divorce laws for its citizens, which may vary dramatically in other member countries. When litigants in member states look – understandably – for the smoothest way out of their domestic tangles, they can come a cropper.

It was a stylish and memorable evening (pictured above: with CBBC partner Alexandre Boiche and others). When I arrived at CBBC there were more than 100 people drinking champagne and attacking the buffet. The firm is located in the heart of Paris on Boulevard de Sébastapol, across three floors in a beautiful building just across from the courts on the Île de la Cité, next to Notre Dame Cathedral. I plunged straight in with my terrible French, which fortunately didn’t last too long, because most people took pity on me and spoke English!

I chatted to German lawyers from Stuttgart and Saarbrucken. I had a conversation with a French professor of law about French divorce law; there were diplomats present with an interest in child abduction cases.

Talking, it became clear that we continue to be divided and exercised by the laws that appear, vanish or change whenever a border is crossed. For example, Paris isn’t London. We don’t have a Civil Code; we have statute law and conventions of judge-made law.  La Manche divides us geographically (even if there is a tunnel underneath) but there is an economic, cultural and social divide that is reflected in our different law, practice and procedure. Continue reading »

I am in Chicago this week; I was delighted to address the lawyers at Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP, the largest family law firm in the USA.

The city is buzzing: in a few days’ time Oprah will close the famous Michigan Avenue – the “Magnificent Mile” of top stores – and launch her next series from outside the Wrigley Building. The Black Eyed Peas will be in concert with her!  Next month, Chicago will learn if it has succeeded in its bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

I am fond of Chicago and find it difficult to do it justice when describing it. Situated on Lake Michigan, its architecture is stunning. The buildings are set off by the vast lake and the river that flows through the city. The views are overwhelming.

As for the artwork in this city: it is spellbinding. Want to see that quintessential American painting, American Gothic? It is here. So too is the best collection of French Impressionists in the world, displayed in room after room at the Art Institute of Chicago.

I took a trolleybus down to Chicago’s South Side, to visit the areas where blues music has a home and to see the relatively modest home where a black American law lecturer and his family lived – before he became President of the USA and left for the White House.

Schiller DuCanto & Fleck is situated on the top floor of a skyscraper on LaSalle Street, which doubles as Gotham City in the Batman films, and its offices provide amazing views across the city. The firm is headed by renowned American “superlawyer” Donald Schiller.

I didn’t know what to expect when I visited, but I needn’t have been concerned. Continue reading »

I recently heard a case about a father, living overseas, who was billed £12,000 for child maintenance by the Child Support Agency (CSA) when he returned to England. My first thought was there had been an administrative error. The rules on child maintenance state that the CSA is unable to become involved in a case when the non-resident parent is habitually resident abroad.

When I explored the facts before me, however, I was soon engulfed in the CSA’s labyrinthine complexities.

According to the CSA’s Quarterly Statistics, more than 6,200 non-resident parents are living abroad but only a quarter of these are paying child maintenance through the CSA. The CSA is unable to enforce maintenance abroad, but this does not mean that the assessed maintenance is written off. Instead, a debt accrues at the CSA in each case. No wonder the CSA has a resource problem – combined, these debts could be in the millions!

Legislation introduced in 1991 meant that on the face of it, a move abroad and habitual residence there was the ideal way for a non-resident parent to evade financial responsibility for a child. This changed in 2000, when the rules were amended to allow for certain circumstances when the CSA would still have jurisdiction to enforce maintenance. These circumstances include: Continue reading »

A trust is an investment – so is sound advice.

Trusts are, without a doubt, bêtes noires for many family lawyers . A client attending a first meeting will expect clear answers, not waffle, particularly if he or she is the beneficiary of a trust.

Here at Stowe Family Law, we were recently visited by the barrister Simon Sugar. One of the specialist family law set at One Garden Court, London, he is the co-author of Unlocking Matrimonial Assets on Divorce, which I thoroughly recommend. We invited him to come here to speak about the content of his book, and to ensure that our lawyers’ specialist knowledge of various forms of trusts and offshore assets was sufficiently refreshed and updated.

Simon Sugar’s visit was arranged as part of Stowe Family Law’s in-house programme for Continuing Professional Development (CPD). This is prepared by one of our partners, Rachel Roberts, and is greatly valued by us all.

Every year we select a thorny subject and immerse ourselves within it. Last year, we chose cohabitation and the law. Professor Rebecca Bailey Harris, of 1 Hare Court, came to our Harrogate offices and gave a talk that was so clear and so straightforward, it’s a pity she didn’t publish it for the entire profession. It was brilliant.

This year, we have chosen trusts. Continue reading »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwu1gKdAvmA[/youtube]

Could she have had a second bite of the cherry?

Clearly, Heather Mills was distraught when she stood on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice and ranted about her award, the judgment and her treatment at the hands of the English court.

There are those in her camp who argue that the judgment was an extraordinarily cruel dissection of her crude attempts to present her case as a litigant in person, against the man who is arguably the best matrimonial finance barrister in the country. Quite why Heather Mills chose such a course of action is a mystery. But choose it she did, notwithstanding the fact that at present, a major criticism of English law in this area is that no-one can say with absolute certainty what the parameters are for settlements in short marriage, “big money” cases. There are so many possibilities. And so I wondered if, despite all the vitriol aimed at Heather, she has actually been an innocent victim of very unclear law?

When I read the judgment and noticed that the parties owned homes abroad, I wondered hypothetically what her position might have been if the facts had changed a little. What if Sir Paul McCartney, instead of being a homegrown superstar, had been a superstar in a foreign country?

If he had divorced her in that country in order to protect his financial position, knowing that the law of that country was much more favourable to him than elsewhere, and she had received only the tiniest fraction of his wealth, could she have come back to England and tried again? Could the courts – the same courts that made this week’s judgment – allowed her a second bite of the cherry and awarded her more?

Continue reading »