Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Departing from equality
A certain well-reported case went before the Court of Appeal last week. Over the weekend, I realised that I hadn't seen any report of the outcome, so I did a news search for the parties' names. Nothing new came up, and now I know why. The Court of Appeal has, somewhat late in the day, banned publication of their names, in order to protect their teenage son. Accordingly, I can now only refer to the case as B v B, and I am grateful (once again) to Current Awareness for providing this link to a report of the case in The Guardian yesterday. I will not repeat the facts of the case - see the report - but suffice to say that the Court of Appeal ruled that the lower courts had erred in trying to share out the assets roughly equally when all of the wealth had been brought into the marriage by the wife, and therefore awarded Ms B a greater than half share.
12 comments:
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)
Good evening John!
ReplyDeleteI must point out immediately that I told the papers that my one request was that they not use my son's name. They promised me they would not. Did I believe them? Well, I knew they'd write what they wanted to, that's why I co-operated with them, so they wouldn't trash me. I am certain that they came looking for an aging Paris Hilton. What they found was me, who invited them in, offered tea and coffee and was not superficial or rude. And since I was being so open with them, yes, I thought they would do this one thing and not mention my son's name. Obviously, they thought it was clever in some way to give the name of a boy who was not yet 16.
Withholding my name or my ex-husband's name from here on in does nothing - everyone who knows my son (the parents of his friends) knows me and will learn of the outcome of the case from me because they are my friends. My friends and family have supported me incredibly well, far beyond what you would expect of people, throughout the entire four years since he left me. I could not have managed to continue putting one foot in front of the other if it had not been for my friends and my family. Thanks to these people, and in part to my own strength of will, I have not become a drinker, a druggie or nuts (to use a technical term).
In some ways, the win was not as spectacular as I would have liked – do remember that I did say I knew I might not get everything I wanted. However, it struck a blow against those lower court judges who think that they can ignore law and precedent. They think they can do this because they assume that women like me will just crawl into a dank hole and oblige everyone by dying quietly. They, and my ex-husband, did not know me very well, did they.
You have been reluctant in the past to comment on my remarks about the two judges, and since there is no ban on using their names I will name them: Circuit Court Judge Williams and District Judge Sandip Kumar Sethi. But there must be a system of checks and balances in the judiciary. I know I am using an American term, but it is an American concept, founded in the Constitution, that the UK might well consider. There has to also be a way to sanction judges who ignore the law and precedent because it seems to them to be the easy thing to do. Get them out on the golf course earlier that week or whatever indulgence they take part in. They can, of course, plead ignorance, but since that is never a defence for the rest of us, they, who are our public servants, cannot use it either.
I intend particularly to draw attention to District Judge Sethi’s remark in his judgement, and this is a direct quote that is in writing: “Domestic violence is normal in some marriages”. This is an outrageous statement and he does not deflect outrage by using the qualifier “some”. You see, he did accept that there was domestic violence here but he is saying that there are circumstances where it is acceptable. No, there are no circumstances where domestic violence is acceptable. Ever. Full stop. A judge with this attitude in the UK in 2008 is not acceptable. Ever. Full stop.
We now move on to the negotiations for costs. Since my ex-husband refused to negotiate anything at any time in four years, I do not think, nor does anyone else, that he will negotiate now. Why change the arrogant attitude of a lifetime? Why change the belief that the world, and me specifically, owes you a living? So, we may all yet have the opportunity to see Annie Ward spectacularly finish off her career in court. Eventually, I am sure you all will see the document she lodged with the court where she stated that, again a direct quote, “James Turner is swinging the lead”. She went on to imply that he was lying to the court. I am told she escaped being charged with contempt and other assorted ills by the skin of her teeth. Should she go into the court and try to claim that her client, having lost, should get costs, and believe me, they have made more bizarre claims than that over four years, then she will truly be ridiculous. I will let you know if we go to court for costs, please do join me on the day.
Back to the judgment: one thing I would take exception with the Judges about is that while I indeed brought conduct into my case, my barrister at the time did so with a “broad brush”. I wanted to show domestic violence, to show that this was not a lovely, sweet man who bent over backwards to help me improve my finances. It had to be said. What the Judges did not do was scrutinise the transcript of the original trial. If they had, they would find that the time spent on me discussing conduct was actually little of the four days of trial. The time Annie Ward spent cross examining me about my habit of drinking bottled water, my tobacco use, and that I did not make my ex-husband cooked English breakfasts was massive. Btw, my reply to the English breakfast questions was that it would have been a good way to kill him! In any case, my faults (that I smoke cigarettes, that I have a newspaper every day, and don’t do English breakfasts) pale in comparison to the violence, the cruelty, and the abuse that I was subjected to for all those years.
They did, however, uphold the law and the precedents that have been established most notably in the Law Lords judgement of 2007, as was also done in McCartney/Mills. Any one in any doubt about why I should and am going to keep at least most of what is mine should re-read that document. As long as it is, it is fairly plain English reading. In my case and in McCartney/Mills, reason prevailed rather than laziness, ignorance or abhorrent alien cultural beliefs.
Good evening!
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for that extremely interesting summary. I certainly agree that the Court of Appeal got it right, although I can't comment on quantum. I'm also pleased that you appear satisfied (and certainly vindicated), even if you didn't get everything you wanted.
Best wishes,
John.
John, this is like a stand-up joke, wait for it: As I predicted, Annie Ward and Rachel Worgen are asking that I pay all my ex-husband's costs! Even though he lost the case! I told you she had new depths of the ridiculous to sink to!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. I probably shouldn't comment...
ReplyDeleteHope it's given you a good laugh anyway.
ReplyDeleteJohn, this really should give everyone a laugh. Annie Ward has hired Jonathan Cohen QC and is going to appeal to the House of Lords directly. Why? Because, she says, the yard stick of equality has been violated. And my ex-husband doesn't like it that I will still be his landlord. Well, I don't much like him being my tenant but I reckoned his money was the same colour as anyone else's.
ReplyDeleteThis is truly laughable. How far is Annie willing to go to ruin her career over my ex-husband? I don't think she has yet found the depths of her professional suicidal tendency.
And so it goes on...
ReplyDeleteJudicial Business (The House of Lords)
ReplyDeleteTuesday 3 June
to the procedures applicable thereto.
4 Berkeley (Respondent) v Bulliqi (Petitioner) The petition of Ardian Bulliqi praying for leave to appeal was presented and referred to an Appeal Committee.
Thanks. We all await the outcome with interest.
ReplyDeleteLord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Hale of Richmond have denied his appeal to the House of Lords because "...the petition does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance".
ReplyDeleteHe lost. Finally. He could go to the European Court of Human Rights but any lawyer that advised him to do that and took the case would be some kind of serious lunatic. Then again, Annie and Rachael...oh well, that's for their shrinks to figure out.
I was a training day for my new job when I got the voice mail from my solicitor about this. My legs were shaking for ages. Fortunately, one of the other women on the training also has a crudball ex-husband in the woodwork and she gave me huge hugs, which kept me upright. I am still stunned, in shock.
It seems the fat lady is onstage for her grande finale.
Now all I have to do is help my son repair his sanity. And make a life.
"Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last". Martin Luther King
I must tell you this, some gallows humour.
ReplyDeleteFor two months,I was working in Kingston and several times a day, I've had to pass by the offices of Ardian's solicitor, Rachael Worgan, Sherwood Wheatley. It's just down the street from where I was working. All this time, I resisted the temptation to lob a grenade in the window and never once set eyes on her. Until my last day at that job (it was a temp gig).
I went out for coffee at lunchtime, and she came walking down the street towards me. I wasn't going to speak to her. Comes under the heading of "inappropriate". Suddenly, she gave me this big beaming smile and says "Hello Miss Berkeley". "Hello", I said. I must have looked very taken aback because then she says, "I'm Ardian Bulliqi's lawyer, Rachael Worgan". "I know who you are", I said.
Here's the killer line: "How are you", she said. How are you? Does that strike you as much of a ridiculous question under the circumstances as it does me?
"Fine", I said, with a fixed look of cold disgust, "How are you?". "Fine", she said. I said, "Don't you have anything else to say?" "No", she said, "I was just being polite". I said, "How about: I'm sorry". She stomped off.
My parting shot: "You won't get this one".
My parting thought: "I will be your worst nightmare".
:-) Excellent news! Now perhaps you can start looking to the future...
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for keeping me informed.