Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Berkeley v Bulliqi, Some Advice... and a Banana

The Telegraph today reports upon Miss Berkeley's appeal, which went before the Court of Appeal, including Sir Mark Potter, yesterday. I mentioned this case previously, in this post, and Linda Berkeley herself commented upon the post. Details of the case can be found in the report of her application for permission to bring a second appeal, but briefly the issue is whether or not there should be a departure from equality, in the light of the fact that the whole of the capital had been hers from before the marriage. Representing her, James Turner QC argued that: "It offends against the principles of fairness to treat the wealth in the present case as if it had all been acquired by the joint efforts during the relationship" and that: "There are very powerful reasons, indeed overwhelming reasons, to justify and require a departure from the equality principle." Judgement was reserved, and will be awaited with interest.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph also today gives advice upon how to avoid having to go to court to sort out financial settlements on divorce. Their suggestions include instructing specialist lawyers as early as possible and going to mediation. The article then goes on to briefly explain the principles upon division of assets, maintenance and pre-nuptial agreements.

Lastly, I wasn't intending to comment again upon the McCartney/Mills divorce (unless there was a major development), but this report on the BBC amused me. It describes the futile attempts by reporters at the High Court last week to to find something newsworthy to report upon. So short of information were they that they were "reduced to analysing facial expressions, clothes and, at one point, a banana in the desperate search for something to say about a court case they are not allowed to report". Why a banana? Well, apparently one morning it was noticed that the only thing being carried into the court that wasn't a legal document was a banana, and it was suggested that this meant that the McCartneys had decided to work through the lunch break, which could mean a settlement was in the offing. "We soon realised we'd reached new levels of insanity", says the BBC correspondent. Indeed.

2 comments:

  1. It is good to see that you haven't forgotten about me.

    What you wouldn't be aware of, because you weren't in court, was the performance, or lack of, by my ex-husband's barrister. Clearly, she showed, by her attitude to the LJs, she had never been in the High Court before. I would have expected her to bat her eyelashes and pull a "I'm new here, help me out if I make a mistake, M'Luds" act, but no. She was aggressively argumentative, arrogent, sarcastic, adament, abrasive... James Turner was the exact opposite. Her argements were incoherent, disjointed and nonsensical. She was forced to retract several statements she had made most feverantly. James Turner was.., well, the exact opposite. I have said before and I will say again, I could have written my ex-husband a better skeleton argument and I could have presented his case better than she did. Did she do this from a sense of commitment to the case or only as a hired gun whose client insisted she persist with the indefensible?

    I may not get PRECISELY what I want at the end of it all but I will get much more of what I want than he will get of what he wants.

    My sincere hope is that reason and BRITISH law will prevail.

    I must thank my whole legal team - Fidelma McCarthy, solicitor, Mark Lyne - barrister, and not least, James Turner - QC. I will also say that, unlike Heather Mills,I could not have done a better job myself.

    Did you see the articles in the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello again,

    I'm glad you were pleased with your legal team, although not surprised - James Turner QC does come with an excellent reputation!

    I've just read the Daily Mail article. For the sake of even-handedness, I'll make no comment!

    Good luck,

    John.

    ReplyDelete

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.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.