An interesting case was heard in Leeds Crown Court last month. A man was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice, after forging his disabled wife’s signature on divorce documents in order to divorce her without her knowledge.

He had continued to live with his unwitting “wife” for a further year, sharing in £1 million of compensation money that she had received. He had also remarried in secret, in a religious ceremony overseas.

The full details of the case can be found here. The scam only came to light only when the “wife” decided to file for divorce – and discovered, to her shock, that she was already a divorcée.

To divorce a spouse is easier than you might think. The petitioner’s honesty and integrity are presumed. The bare minimum that a respondent spouse must do is sign the form acknowledging receipt of the petition. This form is then relied upon by the court as evidence of the respondent’s knowledge of the divorce.

During the course of my career, however, I’ve seen a number of forged signatures on documentation. If a petitioner is proved to have lied, the court will set aside the “divorce” and come down on him like a ton of bricks – as with any court proceedings in which misconduct is identified.

Perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice are offences  that carry certain prison sentences, so such conduct isn’t to be recommended! In my experience, the most unscrupulous characters are self-assured, self-made businesspeople who think they can fool others into believing their elaborate scams. These people come a cropper, once the facts of the case have been viewed objectively and found wanting. The truth comes out – and the price for such greed is often high.

The man in the Leeds case should have popped over to our Harrogate family law office and seen me! He had no need to do what he did; acting honestly, he could have been successful.

He could certainly have included his wife’s compensation money in his financial claims. My bet is that he would have received a part of it. I have previously represented clients in such situations. Compensation money is a marital asset, even though the wife in this case would have had a prior claim. It would have been offset against other assets, of which the husband could have received a higher proportion of those – and why not, particularly if he had assisted her throughout her health challenges?

Instead this man was sentenced to two years in prison. Prison rations, confinement and public humiliation are his lot. Is he still in a position to obtain any of the marital assets? His is the worst type of litigation misconduct, so without further knowledge of the financial circumstances it is difficult to say.

I am sorry to say that during my career, I have come across many such characters. The only consolation is that when justice prevails – as it usually does – it is always an extremely satisfying conclusion to an otherwise unsavoury case.

Will there be blood on the courtroom carpet this week?

As Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills face one another other in court this week, Sir Paul will be flanked by some of the country’s toughest lawyers. Ms. Mills, meanwhile, has elected to represent herself. To my way of thinking, having represented a client in a similar scenario only last week in London’s High Court, to go into court unrepresented is as foolhardy as anyone could ever imagine.

For those unfamiliar with the facilities at the Royal Courts of Justice, let me describe the atmosphere in the sombre courtroom. . Until a final deal is signed and approved by the Court, a fully fought contest could yet take place. Even an agreement reached “in principle” does not guarantee a done deal – and could still break down.

The courtroom is imposing. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Bennett, will sit on a raised dais, without robes or wig. Ranks of lawyers will be seated opposite him. The formidable Queen’s Counsel Nicholas Mostyn, who pulls no punches – he once fearlessly cross-examined an entire opposing team of lawyers, including one by video link while she holidayed in Japan – will sit on the front row. I do not expect him to spare Heather Mills. Behind them will be the barristers and solicitors.

The junior lawyers assisting with the case will bring up the rear. Teetering piles of files, all numbered and paginated, will be stacked on the desks. Individual sets will be placed before the judge, every one of the lawyers and both parties involved. Microphones will be suspended from the ceiling, for an accurate taped record of the hearing. The air will be cold; the atmosphere will be tense and thunderous.

When Heather Mills steps into this courtroom, she will face her husband, this menacing phalanx of lawyers ranged against her, and the judge – who will, I expect, keep the proceedings strictly private. It is only then, I suspect, that she will begin to realise what she is in for. In this courtroom, there will be no prisoners and if an agreement is to be made into a final order, she will be expected to sign up to a draconian agreement drafted by Sir Paul’s lawyers. In my experience there will be a lot of argument about the period of time over which payments are to be made. It isn’t easy for anyone – even Sir Paul Mccartney – to raise a multi-million pound settlement within weeks. It is in his interests to stretch it out as long as possible. In the meantime, agreement must be reached about paying interim maintenance and interest until the payment is made in full. Fine tuning will be needed so that the deal does not become imbalanced in one party’s favour. There will be declarations as to property ownership and contents, tax indemnities, warranties and assurances. There is also likely to be an agreed form of ‘gagging’ clause, – a tough negotiation in itself, if Heather wishes to continue to be a “celebrity”. Then there is child support and other payments for Beatrice. A lot of work must be done. For Heather Mills, the most important point of any consent order, is what is not included and needs to go in, to protect her interests. For Heather Mills to negotiate such an order on her own, pitted against a range of London’s top lawyers, would be lunacy.

But what if there isn’t a settlement? What would she be facing then? Ms. Mills will be up against those some legal brains, which have been finely trained in what is too often an unbelievably vicious process. She will open her mouth before a judge who will not shrink from making the most robust of judgments against her. And she will not be allowed to interrupt.

She seeks an enormous financial settlement, but she will have to put her emotions to one side and deal with her case by reference to the law. I doubt that even she appreciates how difficult that will be. All the fire will be directed at her. The Judge will listen courteously to her arguments, and he will assist her through this process, but at the end of the day, the Court will make a “reasonable” award, and no more. It is extremely unlikely that Heather Mills has the legal skills, or even the case, to come away with anything more than a “reasonable” figure – even if she hopes for more.

Indeed, if she decides not to settle, I think she is in great danger of receiving an award that is significantly less than the settlements that were allegedly offered on previous occasions. If the judge’s award is less than the amount previously offered by Sir Paul, she may also be ordered to pay her husband’s legal costs. The costs of this case are reportedly £2million on each side. Paying two sets of costs could significantly deplete any award made.

Admittedly, Ms. Mills’ experiences representing herself in court, up against her idolised husband and the pillars of the legal establishment, could have all the makings of a great film. She could even play herself as the heroine. However, I fear that single-handed battle in the High Court is a labour for which she is ill-qualified. Even if she does settle, she could succumb to an unbalanced deal that she will regret for the rest of her life. With this in mind, a movie version may end up resembling the McCartney Chainsaw Massacre – with Heather Mills as the victim.

“The client walked away with millions – and I used the case as the basis for a storyline in The Archers.”

The hardest cases – the tricky, nerve-wracking ones that need a bit of brain power – are always the most interesting. I like to play “intellectual chess”! One such case was when a client’s husband told her, out of the blue, that he was leaving. He complained that he was fed up with her spending, and claimed she was “sending him bankrupt’”. He refused to give her his new address, but told her to contact him at his business. She suspected that he was having an affair with her (newly divorced) best friend.

This couple enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. At their swish, £3 million home, they employed a groom, a gardener, and domestic help. The wife kept ponies in a paddock and stables, and the home also had a swimming pool and tennis court. There were no children. The wife, a former model, now passed her time horse riding. The husband liked to play golf and was often seen in the company of her best friend, who was also a keen golfer.

In “Big Money” cases, as with others, assets are identified, valued and divided up. In this instance, because the couple had been as poor as church mice when they had wed and their wealth had been built up during the marriage, a straightforward 50/50 split looked to be in order. When the husband’s solicitors wrote to me, however, it became clear that he loathed his wife.

The husband gave a different version of events. He insisted that his wife’s incessant spending had brought him to the brink of bankruptcy. His company was failing. The house was fully mortgaged, save for about £300,000. There were no savings. Around £50,000 had been run up on credit cards. There were no pension arrangements, as income had been swallowed up by his wife’s profligate expenditure. He had a decreasing income of £100,000 gross per annum. He offered his wife yearly maintenance of £40,000 – although he said that he was unable to guarantee this sum in the long term – plus the sum of £200,000 towards a house. His solicitors warned that if she did not accept his “generous” offer, he would take her to court and make her pay the costs. The parties had very different stories. Which of them was telling the truth?

In England and Wales, a party found guilty of “litigation misconduct” can be ordered to pay the other sides’ legal costs, even though the general rule is that each party pays its own. This meant that if my client litigated fruitlessly when she could have settled before proceedings were issued, she would have to pay her husband’s bill of costs. This would further reduce the pot she had been offered – and presented a real risk she could end up with next to nothing at all.

In the meantime, there was also the problem of how her own legal costs would be met. With no assets of her own, save for a heavily mortgaged property, she could not afford to litigate. Of course, the husband knew this – and was gambling that her straitened circumstances would influence her reaction to his proposal. One solution was to take the husband to court for interim maintenance, to include a hefty monthly payment for costs if bank funding was unavailable. Given the lack of equity in the home, funding was not available; given the husband’s reduced income, neither was interim maintenance. An alternative was what has become known as a ‘Sears Tooth’ agreement. This is a document signed by client and solicitor. When such an agreement is made, the solicitor agrees to fund the case. The client assigns her settlement to the solicitors, and at the end of the case her bill of costs – as agreed or assessed by the court – is debited from it. However, in very difficult cases such as this, with no apparent assets, a Sears Tooth agreement is useless.

The client was adamant. Her husband was lying. He had millions.

What did I do? I believed her and decided to take on the challenge. I took on the case on a ‘Sears Tooth basis,’ even though I knew it could turn out to be worthless. Then I set to work.

With the invaluable help of Frank Arndt, a German colleague of mine who speaks several languages, we monitored the husband’s undisclosed business activities throughout Europe. A lot of hard work was involved, but the internet provided a useful source of assistance. We uncovered a spider’s web of trade activity.

About a year later, when the case came before the High Court, the husband capitulated after the first day. He settled and paid our costs in full.

How did I finally get him? With an inspiration that struck at 3 ‘o’ clock one morning. I had been awake, worrying about for how much longer we could progress the case. The costs had been mounting, with little to show for our work. Then I remembered a single entry I had noticed on one of the husband’s bank statements. The statements all showed that he was heavily overdrawn. However, the entry itself provided an important clue. I realised that the husband had to have a second business in England.

After we took a calculated risk, subpoenaing the husband’s new girlfriend, it emerged that she had no wish to give evidence in court. The truth came tumbling out. The husband did have two businesses. One was a limited company, with accounts lodged at Companies House. The other was a “shadow” business, owned by his girlfriend but run by him. The business registered with Companies House had been deliberately plunged into decline by the husband, so that he could minimise his wife’s maintenance. All its profits and growth had been diverted to the undisclosed “shadow” business.

The case was a triumph for us. It required nerves of steel; what seems easy in retrospect is never easy at the time. As I mentioned, I enjoy games of intellectual chess. On this occasion, it was a pleasure to chase the husband – into checkmate.

Our client walked away with several millions. And me? Some time afterwards, I was approached by the producers of the BBC Radio 4 soap, The Archers.  The producers wanted a convincing matrimonial storyline for duplicitous, fictional businessman Matt Crawford. This case provided a perfect starting-point…