The new ancillary relief costs rules (see my previous post here) have now filtered down to the popular press, albeit in an article by District Judge Stephen Gold in the Law section of the Times Online. In the article District Judge Gold summarises the changes in the law, but he also makes an important point: that one party may feel pressurised into accepting an inadequate offer, fearing a substantial increase in their costs, which they will not be able to recover from the other party. It is often the case that one party in 'ancillary relief' (i.e. financial/property) proceedings will be in a considerably weaker financial position than the other party. For that party, finding money to pay costs will be far harder, and therefore refusing an offer from the other party will be far more difficult.
The District Judge also points out the recent court fee increases (also mentioned by me previously here), and speculates (no doubt tongue in cheek) that these changes "might all encourage reconciliations". Somehow, I doubt that!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
1 comment:
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Judge wants "generous" offers to be kept open. This is a bias view (and very unfortunate that a Judge should hold it), which he indicats that he believes that women(in general) are accepting less than they could be getting. The Judge fails to see that the other side may offer more than they could AFFORD, perhaps through guilt or a miss-guided sense of duty. Just because an offer is made does not mean that the person who offered it did so with a clear understanding of all the implications. EITHER side can be emotionally vulnerable Judge Gold! I feel that now men are the vulnerable party in any family court room.
ReplyDeleteThe Judge states
"Offers to settle before the hearing — open and no longer secret offers — will be relevant so that if, say, a generous offer were scoffed at and the court has decided that much less was reasonable then the scoffing could prove expensive."
"With the new law comes a danger. It is that one side, fragile from the end of a relationship and nervous of what the future holds, will feel pressured into accepting an inadequate offer."