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 »

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 »