Tuesday, July 10, 2012

News Update: 10th July 2012

WELCOME to the Family Lore News Update.

Items already covered in separate posts since the last update:

Senior judge likens wealthy divorcing couple to squabbling children
A senior judge has likened a “very rich” couple to a pair of squabbling children as they fight over the fairness of their £26 million divorce settlement. Mathew Thorpe raps the knuckles of yet another couple who should know better. He told them:
“It seems to me almost puerile; these very rich people distrusting and disliking each other intensely, so somebody has to come into the nursery to make some rules to dissipate all this nonsense.
“I simply cannot understand how the parties can litigate with such profligate extravagance.”
Full story: The Telegraph.

Care applications (year-on-year) slightly down in June
Could the increase in care applications finally be reversing? Not necessarily, as the fall may be explained by the reduction of working days because of special bank holidays. Full story: Family Law Week.

More babies in care to receive a stable home more swiftly
The Prime Minister announced plans to reduce radically the time it takes for a baby to move in with their permanent family. The 'foster to adopt' plan, discussed by suesspiciousminds (below). Full story: Department for Education.

Judge bans reporting of divorce finances to save 'embarrassment'
A judge has banned publication of details of a divorce case on human rights grounds after the father of the husband claimed it risked causing him embarrassment and ruining his career. Journalists had said that there was "serious public interest in the issues raised" and argued that they should be allowed to report evidence given at a divorce court hearing in London, but District Judge Hilary Bradley said the "balance" fell in favour of "privacy being maintained", and ruled that details of the case could not be reported. Full story: The Telegraph.

Scottish cohabitation ruling has “lessons” for England and Wales, Lady Hale says
Cohabitants and their children south of the border 'deserve no less' than than the same rights as their Scottish counterparts, says Baroness Hale in her speech in the Supreme Court judgment of Gow v Grant, discussed by Marilyn Stowe (below). As to whether Lady Hale's words will persuade Westminster to catch up with Edinburgh, I wouldn't hold your breath. Full story: Solicitors Journal.

The only new English cases of note that I came across in the last week were Gallarotti v Sebastianelli and JRG v EB, both of which I have posted about separately already - see above.

Cohabitation and Trusts of Land Update
"The purpose of this article is to consider the law of constructive trusts following Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, judgment given on 9th November 2011, insofar as it relates to the purchase of property primarily by cohabitants." Full article: Zenith Chambers (PDF).

Gow v Grant: the Supreme Court rules on cohabitation
"I first wrote about the Scottish case of Gow v Grant in a post for the Times’ Experts blog, in September 2011" says Marilyn Stowe, before embarking upon a detailed examination of the Supreme Court judgment last week. Full post: Marilyn Stowe Blog.

Con-current bun-fight?
A quick summary of the new Fostering for Adoption proposals by suesspiciousminds.

When assets aren’t divided 50:50. By Paul Read.
Marilyn writes: "Among non-lawyers, there prevails a belief that marital assets are simply divided 50:50 in a divorce. However it is a mistake to assume that this is always the case." Full post: Marilyn Stowe Blog.

Do family courts discriminate against husbands, or wives?
Marilyn looks at the question that is asked by so many people, and upon which so many people have their own (usually fixed) opinion. Full post: Marilyn Stowe Blog.


  1. “I simply cannot understand how the parties can litigate with such profligate extravagance.”

    we don't need to understand it, merely stand close by and profit from it...

    1. "Common sense as usual from SW."

      - Edgar Venal


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.