Hylton-Potts – Free Legal Advice, Divorce Lawyer, Beneft Fraud & Motoring Offences

A schoolboy who was ordered by the High Court to live with his “wholly deserving” father has been allowed to stay with his mother at the end of an 11-year legal battle.

The father left the hearing in tears, after a judge ruled that to protect the mental health of the 12-year-old boy, who has said that he hates his father, it would not enforce its original decision to remove him from his mother.

The ruling brings to an end one of the longest contact disputes ever seen in an English court. Judge Clifford Bellamy, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in London, said it raised serious questions about children who had become alienated from a parent and did not know their true feelings.

The Government is conducting a review of family law, one part of which is whether fathers are being treated fairly in the courts when relationships break down.

The parents in the case married in 1996 and separated some months later before the son was born. The father issued his first application for contact with his son in June 1999 and succeeded, beginning an arrangement that progressed over the years to foreign holidays. The arrangement broke down in February 2006 and over the next four years “immense energy and resources were invested in trying to reinstate a meaningful relationship between father and son”, the judge said. He was particularly critical of the mother for arranging so many out-of-school activities every day of the week so that the boy had no opportunity to see his father. She had opposed and undermined all efforts at contact, the judge said.

In the end, the failure of the parents to agree on regular meetings between the boy and his father, including one broken contact order, resulted in the court taking the extreme step of transferring residency from the mother to the father in January this year. In the extraordinary ruling, Judge Bellamy had said that, although it might be “traumatic in the short term”, the boy should live with his father, although he had not seen him for four years.

The decision was also extraordinary given that the father lives in London with his new wife and family and the mother in the Midlands. The boy was placed in foster care and the family began a programme of therapy. But at a series of introductory meetings in the build-up to the move between father and son, the boy put his head in his lap, put his fingers in his ears and refused to eat and drink or engage in any way with his father.

Social workers at Warwickshire County Council were so fearful of his mental health that they advised the father to give up his efforts to be reunited with his son, to which he “reluctantly agreed”.

When he heard of the decision, the boy volunteered that he would see his father on his terms when he was ready.

This heartbreaking story need not happen to you. At Hylton-Potts we passionately believe in the rights of children to have meaningful relationship with both parents.

Rodney Hylton-Potts has 25 years experience of dealing with difficult mothers.

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

If you are worried that you have broken the rules, and want to stop a criminal prosecution or record consult the experts.

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

It is not if but when. They are coming to get you.

Credit agencies are used by banks, credit card firms and others to identify whether individuals have a bad credit history. Under the Government plans, the agencies will effectively be carrying out the process in reverse.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has been told to draw up detailed plans for a benefits crackdown.

WHO’S WATCHING YOU?

Credit check: Agencies hold details

Credit reference agencies have a powerful role in determining who is granted mortgages, loans and credit cards.

The three agencies, Experian, Equifax and Call-Credit, hold a host of personal and financial information about every adult in the UK.

Shops, banks and building societies refer to their records every time a customer applies for credit.

This can include mortgages, personal loans, current account overdrafts, credit cards, store cards or when customers try to buy something on higher purchase such as a car or sofa.

Each person’s credit file contains information from the electoral roll, including name, address and previous addresses, as well as any court judgments, bankruptcies, or home repossessions.

Crucially, a person’s credit files also contain: details of all credit accounts held over the past six years and applications for credit in the past 12 months; how much credit the person has available; their record of paying off debt; and the size of their debts.

The benefit fraud investigators will have access to all this data, coupled with their wide-ranging powers to access bank accounts without the account holder’s knowledge, get information from the taxman, and instigate surveillance.

The crucial step is to approach the investigators, with expert legal help, before they come to you.

If you are worried that you have broken the rules, and want to stop a criminal prosecution or record consult the experts.

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

We have all been angry and frustrated when a utility, or energy company, like British Gas is incompetent and you lose out, but now you can bring a claim.

If your time is wasted e.g. you are self employed, and you have lost time and money, due to problems take them to court.

Log every phone call, letter and time off work. We at Hylton-Potts can send you a spreadsheet free of charge if you e-mail us. Companies should realise that their customers’ time is just as valuable as their own.

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

DIY detective work by divorcing couples to expose a spouse’s hidden assets was declared unlawful in a landmark ruling, ending decades of traditional tactics in marriage disputes.

Litigants will no longer be able secretly to seize papers or documents that they find lying around or access e-mails after the Court of Appeal held that this could breach a person’s rights of confidence and might also be a crime.

Divorce lawyers immediately condemned the ruling, saying it would turn back the clock decades, reversing the principle that wives are entitled to an equal share when a marriage breaks up.

It would also fuel the costs and acrimony of divorce proceedings because spouses would be obliged to resort to expensive legal proceedings to obtain orders that would force partners to disclose their assets.

The ruling came in a divorce battle between Vivian Imerman, 53, the former owner of Del Monte Foods, and his wife Lisa Tchenguiz, 43.

The wife had won the right to use 20,000 documents removed from Mr Imerman’s computer

But the Court of Appeal disagreed and ordered the return of the material.

If the wife was allowed to keep the documents, it “would give her access to material which was confidential to Mr Imerman and had been unlawfully taken from him’.

The judges said that there was “no real doubt” that Mr Imerman’s rights of confidence had been breached and ordered that seven files of documents and all copies being held by Ms Tchenguiz’s solicitors be handed over to Mr Imerman’s solicitors.

Mr Imerman was also entitled to an order restraining Ms Tchenguiz or her lawyers, for the time being, “from using any of the information they have obtained through reading the seven files”, the appeal judges said.

Leading London divorce lawyer Rodney Hylton-Potts said: “How can there be protection of confidentiality, over those very documents that the duty of disclosure requires to be revealed on divorce? ‘

The wife is prohibited from saying what her husband claims he is worth, compared with what is in the public domain.

Rodney Hylton-Potts said it was a “ground-breaking” decision that would revolutionise the disclosure of documents in family cases.’

If you want advice on a matrimonial money battle, or disclosure of documents, contact the experts – For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

Senior judges are taking a tough line with former wives of millionaires who return to court seeking to reopen divorce settlements.

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.

A ruling is awaited in the case of the German heiress Katrin Radmacher and her former husband.

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 Court of Appeal has ruled that a building designed as a house, but used entirely as an office could be considered a “house” for leasehold enfranchisement purposes.

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.

Estate agents and developers will offer you a virtual freehold. Take care.

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

Judges hearing cohabitation claims over a former couple’s home should only depart from the principle of equal interests where there is a clear indication of joint shared intentions to the contrary/

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.