Judges have become concerned that the decisions of High Court, have led to London being the divorce capital of the world.

Judges have thrown out attempts by former wives to challenge the terms of their divorce awards. In the latest, the former wife of the Conservative Party grandee Sir Paul Judge failed to amend a £6.6 million divorce settlement that she received nearly ten years ago.

In another case, a wife who was awarded £7.5 million unsuccessfully tried to challenge the settlement after she claimed that the judge had wrongly calculated the division of the couple’s assets. One senior appeal judge said that neither “is ever going to experience any financial want or need”.

In another case involving a Russian couple, the same judge lamented the amount of judicial time devoted to “wasteful” litigation between super-rich couples who wanted to get divorced in London but had only a “slender connection” with the capital.

The Court of Appeal upheld a divorce that had been granted in Moscow to the Russian Oligarch Ilya Golubovich, in spite of his wife’s desire to be divorced in London.

Involved in making or defending a financial claim in a divorce case?

Consult the experts – For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

Should pre-nuptial contracts be binding in law? The Supreme Court justices are wrestling with this issue – and their decision is expected shortly.

Lawyers had been expecting the ruling by now – and speculate that the delay means the justices cannot agree; or at least will each give their own opinion. Nine judges are involved, and the decision is keenly awaited.

The couple signed a prenuptial agreement that neither could claim against the other in the event of divorce but Mr Granatino, who is French, then pursued his wife, who is worth £100 million, for a settlement.

He was awarded more than £5 million in the High Court, but the decision was overturned on appeal. There is argument over whether he knew what he was signing up to; and whether he had full disclosure as to his wife’s assets.

But the case gives the highest court a chance to lay down guidelines, and to say whether the presumption in future should be that prenuptial contracts are followed, unless there is good reason to the contrary, which is what the Court of Appeal have laid down.

Wealthy men are blinded by love and most refuse prenuptial agreements to safeguard their money if they divorce, a survey shows.

A poll of highflyers earning more than £100,000 a year shows they still have a “head-in-the-sand” naivety or romanticism towards marriage, with only 8 per cent wanting or having a prenup.

At present such contracts can be taken account of by judges and have increasingly been held as “persuasive”. But courts can still decide whether to uphold them or not.

The hope is that a reform in the law would diminish the number of acrimonious court battles over assets, as with Sir Paul McCartney when he broke up with Heather Mills.

But while men accept the growing role of prenuptial agreements to protect their assets, fewer than one in 12 (8 per cent) have or want one.

The research marks the tenth anniversary of the landmark White v White divorce case.

In that case, the courts gave equal recognition to the non-financial contributions of the wife, with the default position of halving all assets if a marriage ended.

Before then a wife’s “reasonable needs” were calculated on a case by case basis.

Rodney Hylton-Potts, an expert divorce lawyer said that in his experience, at the point of a marriage break-down, men often do not feel as generous.

“While some may see men’s attitudes towards marriage as refreshingly optimistic and romantic, given the divorce rate, they should think seriously about taking safeguarding measures such as pre and/or postnuptial agreements.

It’s a brave move to have that difficult conversation [about a prenuptial contract] when everything in the relationship is rosy, but preparing for the worst case scenario can avoid a lot of animosity and costly litigation later. It need not be a breakdown in the relationship. It could be a serious car accident or unforeseen mental illness and personality change’’

Involved in a divorce battle, or about to be, or need advice about a prenup?

Come to the experts. For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

The floodgates are open, for all sorts of buildings that nobody would perceive as being a house.

This ruling is clearly going to have a huge impact on a wide range of properties not only in London, but around the country.

Whether a building was a “house” for the purposes of section 2 (1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 should be determined “at least in the main” by its physical appearance and character.

The judge said “One could, it seems to me, quite naturally describe a building built as a town house, which had subsequently been internally converted into offices, as a ‘house used as offices’: hence it would ‘reasonably [be] called’ a house, even though it was not used for residential purposes, and even if it was not permitted to be so used.

“If most people were asked whether a building could reasonably be called a house, I am not convinced it would occur to them to ask about the permitted use under any lease, or that they would be influenced if told what the permitted use was.”

He said: “The 1967 Act was originally intended to assist residential tenants occupying
their houses as their only or main residence to acquire their freeholds, but it can extend to buildings exclusively used for business purposes.”

Many commercial tenants will now seek to enfranchise. A lot of companies were waiting for this decision, particularly in central London, where so many properties built as houses are now in office use.

Whether you are a landlord seeking to preserve your freehold, or a tenant seeking to enfranchise, contact the expert Rodney Hylton-Potts 020 7381 8111 or email law@rhplaw.co.uk for a free opinion.

There is no such thing as virtual freehold. When a block of flats is developed each flat’s ownership should be sold/split as a new long lease, The freehold reversion should either be:
a. retained by existing owner; or
b. transferred to a newly-created company (limited by guarantee) of which each flat’s leaseholder should be a member.

So be careful of falling for the sales patter ‘ virtual freehold’ when it is not even exist.

Call or e-mail the experts for a free opinion.

For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Wall said there was “a total lack of evidence about the parties’ intentions”, in this case and overturned the findings by the county court and High Court that the interests should shift to 90-10 in favour of Patricia Jones.

Ms Jones and Leonard Kernott had lived together unmarried for eight years in the house they had jointly bought in 1985 in Essex, before separating in 1993. Since then Mr Kernott has lived in his own property, leaving Ms Jones to pay for the remaining mortgage on the house and fund the upbringing and education of their two children.

“The critical question is whether or not I can properly infer from the parties’ conduct since separation a joint intention that, over time, the 50-50 split would be varied,” said the judge.and I simply cannot infer such an intention from the parties’ conduct.

“The conveyance into joint names created a joint beneficial interest, and had equal interests, when they separated .There has to be something to displace those interests, and I have come to the conclusion that the passage of time is insufficient to do so, even if in the meantime [Mr Kernott] has acquired alternative accommodation, and [Ms Jones] has paid all the outgoings.”

“In my judgment, [Mr Kernott] has a 50 per cent interest in the property,

Leading London lawyer, Rodney Hylton-Potts said, ‘There really must be a new law. It seems quite unfair that when one party pays all the outgoings, after a separation, he or she is still only get 50%. The courts must be forced to be not concerned with fairness’

If you own a property jointly with an ex-partner contact the expert

For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

‘Also I have been approached by several clients, because I am starting the UK equivalent of a class action, which could end up with thousands of clients claiming NATS, CAA and VAAC, from millions of pounds for negligent advice, breach of duty, and gross incompetence in mishandling the crisis.

I have little doubt the airlines will be claiming, but I will be helping the little man and woman.’

Ends

For further information e-mail law@rh-p.net or telephone 020 738 18111.

Employees have protection against an unauthorised deduction from their wages.

Does the contract state that you do not get paid, if you do cannot get in, due to adverse weather?

It can if the Employer drafts it correctly.

Also another argument is that if an employee is unable to attend work, they have not performed their obligations, and therefore are not entitled to pay.

Another Question: Can my employer force me to take a day off as holiday when I am stranded?

Yes, if reasonable notice is given, not just the day before.

Legal Experts in unusual circumstances

Legal experts have said that businesses and public bodies are within their rights to stop pay of those who cannot get into work, because they are stranded abroad.

We disagree and do not give up that easily, and can apply appropriate pressure.

We are street fighters. We fight for your rights. We can help you.

Volcano Ash and Fight and Holiday Compensation

Volcano Ash Causes Holiday Chaos

Act of God or not, the airline or travel agent or company contracted you to deliver you safely on a particular day (subject to modest delays) and therefore they have to arrange alternative arrangements and make sure you are not out of pocket. This can cover food, drink and hotel accommodation.

Consult the experts – Hylton-Potts

For more information and a free legal opinion, telephone

020 7381 8111 – 24 hour service

or email law@rhplaw.co.uk to discuss your circumstances

They cannot remember despite consulting diaries.  It could have been either of them.

This can result in all charges being dropped.

Millionaires Ian and Jayne Oliphant-Thompson tried this, but got in a dreadful mess and ended up both getting fines and costs of over £1500 and sharing 12 penalty points.

We can help. Come to the experts. For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

That means sending or receiving a voice or written message, or email or going on the Internet.

Dictating notes into a ‘phone using it as a dictaphone is not covered.

If you have been stopped for using your mobile ‘phone contact the expert. For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

Sloppy slow expensive solicitors if you feel let down by your solicitor come no further. We were set up in 1999 as a cheaper, quicker and better alternative.

We receive numerous complaints from people all over the country that solicitors:

1. Are too expensive

2. Are sloppy and slow

3. Do not return calls

4. Are negligent

But above all do not look after the interests of their clients.

It dos not matter whether the case, is just starting or half way through or nearing trial. It is not too late to change advisers. We do not charge for taking over a case so you have got nothing to lose.

Also we can advise you on whether you have a claim against your solicitor, to get a refund of fees or even better some real compensation for your losses, and we can help you with the strain and stresses.

If your solicitor has been negligent, look no further.

We can give you a free initial opinion on whether the claim is worth pursuing, and if it is often a modest fixed fee such as £195 or £200 £250, including VAT, draft the appropriate tough legal letters and the Court proceedings, and getting everything ready to get you your entitlement.

We can arrange other experts to support your case.

Rodney Hylton-Potts did not get his nickname from his clients ‘Rottweiler’ by being touchy feely. Get him on your side now.

Telephone Rodney Hylton-Potts, Litigation Lawyer in London on 020 7301 8111 or email law@rhplaw.co.uk 24 hours a day 7 days a week.