Thursday, February 22, 2018

Divorce Needs - I need £58,000 for shoes!


Is anyone old enough to remember Imelda Marcos's shoe collection? A thousand pairs have gone mouldy now apparently. This case also reminded me of Heather Mills seeking a helicopter and a billionaire lifestyle from her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney. She did not succeed in establishing her claim and left the marriage with a paltry £24 million.  But what of Ms Estrada?
Christina Estrada, a US citizen and former Pirelli Calendar model, was married to billionaire Saudi shiekh Dr Walid Juffali in September 2001. Dr Juffali being a Saudi national.
The 12-year marriage collapsed in 2012 when Dr Juffali married a Lebanese television presenter 32 years his junior whilst still married to Miss Estrada; a union which is allowed under Islamic law.
Miss Estrada drew ridicule for her demands. She initially sought £196.5 million, including £116,000 a year for handbags, £46,000 a year for Wimbledon and Ascot tickets and £1 million a year for clothes, including £40,000 for fur coats and £83,000 for cocktail dresses.
In a judgment on July 8 2016, Mrs Justice Roberts gave Dr Juffali three weeks to pay a settlement worth just over £75 million, including a £140,000 Lamborghini. This should be measured against the 54 year old former models demands for a settlement of some £196 million as reported in the Daily Mail
This was the largest "needs award" ever made by an English court although larger payouts have been made. In 2011 Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky agreed to pay some £385 million as part of an even larger settlement. Some 3 years later, Sir Chris Hohn was ordered to pay his ex wife some £337 million in their divorce.
These are clearly awards beyond the imagination of most people. The question though is really one of jurisdiction. Why are our courts attracting these kind of cases? Is the legislation that we offer reasonable compare to those offered in other countries? It is possible make an application in England even after a different jurisdiction has made a financial ruling. This, if it can be shown that such award was unfair.  We have a more generous approach to financial provision in big money cases, the yardstick of equality being the starting position. Gone are the days of a millionaire's defence... no disclosure required as the husband was confident he had adequate resources to meet the wife's reasonable needs  as assessed by the court.
There are two interesting and perhaps unique characteristics of English Family Law:
1. There is no statute of limitations - so a claim can be made decades after divorce...
2. The yardstick of equality is the starting position and the cornerstone of each judgement is  judicial discretion.
Ms Estrada described her lifestyle during the marriage as magical... and she looks pretty ecstatic in thephotos walking out of court with a cool £75 million...
However, her ex husband died 9 days before he was due to make the ordered payment and Ms Estrada is now involved in further litigation to secure the payout... some say she will never get any money out of Saudi Arabia... interesting twist to a magical tale...


Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Domestic Violence continues apace...




Here's one I wrote before I got distracted by Brexit...

Parliament held a debate on 04 February 2016 considering the role that men can play to reduce domestic violence against women. The House of Commons produced a briefing stating that domestic violence is a ‘key priority’ for the Government and an updated violence against women and girls strategy is due to be published shortly.



Parliament recognized that campaigning groups said that men can play a part in preventing violence in a number of ways which include:



1. Being a positive role model to other men and speaking out against domestic violence, helping to change attitudes and social norms.



2. Taking on a leadership role in the community and using this opportunity to speak out against violence.



3. Confront sexist, homophobic and other prejudicial remarks.



4. Not buying magazines, movies or watch television programs that portray women in a sexually degrading or violent manner.



The briefing stated that the cost of domestic violence is estimated to employers as some 3.1 billion. The total cost is an estimated 23 billion. There are various factors taken into account, including the human and emotional suffering and the subsequent suffering of children.



The debate discussed the White Ribbon campaign and how local authorities can embrace this campaign by becoming a member themselves, by reviewing code of conducts for employee, by commissioning services ensuring that the principles of the Write Ribbon campaign are written into new contracts.



Examples of inappropriate behaviour among young girls which were laughed off by other men were cited; also examples of women being inappropriately touched by strangers on the dance floor, in a bar, on a tube, on a train - it appeared prevalent in public places where space is confined and men take advantage of the opportunity to grope and inappropriately touch women.



One teacher stated that violence against women is everywhere, on every street a woman is taking a beating while just keeping quiet and waiting for the ordeal to be over. In every night spot in the country, some teenaged girl is groped and shamed. Every school in the country has a kid whose time there is respite from what they see at home. When a problem is everywhere, ‘we need everyone to join in the fight to stop it’. The MP Geoff Phillips read out a letter from a teacher.



She then continued, this is not an 'us and them’ issue for women and men. Women fight for their rights to live free from violence are not attacking men; they are defending women. The more men who join us in the fight again violence against women, the less it will happen. We must encourage every woman who suffers violence to report it to the police. I wish I had.



Cat Smith, labour MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood stated:



‘It is clear that violence against women remains a significant  problem in Britain, with 900,000 calls relating to domestic violence to the police up until March 2015. This equate to a staggering 100 calls every hour of every day’.



The solutions they suggested focus on education, having suitable role models to follow and refuge provision. The Government has announced 40 million between 2016 and 2020 for domestic abuse services including refuges and a two million grant to Women’s Aid and SafeLives to support early intervention. However, a better outcome for women would potentially be if they could stay in their home with their family whilst the perpetrator is removed and not allowed to move in with the next partner to start the cycle of abuse all over again. This was the view cited by Karen Bradley, Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Home Department. She stated as follows:



‘Women are girls are far more likely to be victims of such crimes and we recognise that inequality and gender play fundamental roles in violence against women and girls. We all have important roles to play in challenging the cultural norms and stereotypes that underpin violence against women.’



In my experience, domestic violence can go unreported for many years. Eventually the victim is strong enough to make a complaint either to the police or via the civil court via a non-molestation application. The response of the perpetrator is often denial and mud slinging. I have had cases where large men have accused petite women of fighting with them. This stretches the imagination somewhat and even photographic evidence of a black eye and a broken jaw does not halt such perpetrators from denying the abuse and alleging a ‘tit for tat’ scenario. This makes the whole situation more traumatic for the victim.



The difficulty in a lot of case is a financial one. The woman will be left without a home for herself and often her children. The offer of a refuge is a short term solution and is not a preferred option for many.



Two women a week are murdered by their partner or an ex-partner. This statistic is shocking, but to shift the cultural norm that it is acceptable for a man to use violence against a woman when he is provoked or out of control, education is required at every level.



It is not acceptable to bully another human being. The domestic violence laws have been strengthened recently to take into account forms of domestic abuse which fall short of violence. Often domestic abuse increases in severity and frequency.



Campaigns have been used in the past showing a fist followed by a bouquet of flowers. The remorse and apology the next day claiming undying love and the fact that it is only because of this love the man was driven to such behaviour requires a unified voice to shout out and proclaim that this is wholly unacceptable. Love does not involve violence. It would be ridiculous for a woman to hire a mercenary to beat up her husband if he was late home from work and respond the next day that this was only because she loved him and he had driven her to it. Such a scenario is laughable in its ridiculousness. Men and women need to rethink the social norm that domestic violence has become.



The debate states that every woman who undergoes domestic violence should call the police. Unfortunately the police switch boards would be jammed. Most women consider it is a waste of police time. What do you do if at 2 a.m. your husband refuses to allow you to sleep, switches the light on and pulls the duvet cover off of the bed? You are scared and the only reason you cannot go to sleep is because he will not let you and will not leave the room. If you go to the bathroom, he kicks the door in. Do you call the police? The answer is probably no because you consider that the police have more important things to do, however, such behaviour is wholly unacceptable. The above scenario happened to me an experienced divorce lawyer and, yes I did not call the police. And yes the domestic abuse continued, worsened and yes I swiftly ended the marriage.  And yes his disruptive behaviour became worse. It is not an exaggeration to say that he tried to destroy my life and career. I now have 9 civil injunctions on him - 4 for life and 5 for 5 years... there were 14 criminal investigations...



The only way to end this is via zero tolerance akin to Mayor Galliano’s campaign in New York. Whether there is enough traction and goodwill to facilitate this will be bourn out as to how the Government approaches the next stage. The mention of the cost of 23 billion may well promote a conservative government to take action against this abuse. Educating your children that such behaviour is wrong, if at the same time you allow such behaviour to continue in your own home, is nonsensical. Each of us can make a small step to bring about this change and we need to start now.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

What are the Grounds for Divorce


Jennifer Aniston, Marion Collitard and even Sinita have been dragged into the impending uncoupling of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
Pitt met Jolie in 2005 on the set of Mr and Mrs Smith. He was still married to Aniston at the time.
There were then, and are now rumours of infidelity.
Angelina filed papers citing irreconcilable differences as the reason for the split and asking for physical custody of the couple's six children - Maddox, age 15; Pax, aged 12; Zahara, aged 11; Shiloh, aged 10; and twins Vivienne and Knox, aged eight.

Divorce in England and Wales

What then are the grounds for divorce? Divorce law across the Pond is different. They have the term - irreconcilable differences. In England and Wales there is a common misconception that there are 5 grounds for divorce. This is not technically true there is only one basis for a divorce. That being that you have been married for at least at year and that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. It rests with the party who is filing for the divorce to demonstrate one of five different facts.  Those facts being:
1. Adultery - you must prove that your husband/wife has committed adultery. It must be proved that the spouse has had sexual intercourse with another party and you find it intolerable to live with them.  It cannot be your own adultery giving rise to the action. It is harder than anticipated to prove this fact and most Petitioners will choose instead to file under the fact of unreasonable behaviour.
2.  Unreasonable behaviour is the most common fact upon which to provide the ground for divorce.   You must demonstrate that your ex partner has behaved in such a way that you cannot reasonably expect to continue to live with them.  If the allegations of behaviour are serious such as physical violence then one or two allegations should be sufficient but if you are alleging a less severe fact such simply growing apart then you will have to put forward half a dozen or so points of reference.
3. 2 years separation - In this instance you have been separated from your previous partner for at least two years and you both agree to the divorce.
4. 5 years separation - you have been living apart from your spouse for at least 5 years then the other party does not need to consent.
5. Desertion. The least commonly used fact is where the spouse has actually deserted the Petitioner for at least two years.
The facts seem simple enough but the process can be stressful and complicated where there are children and entwined finances.  A specialist family solicitor can alleviate the obvious pressure and stresses surrounding a quite frankly not pleasant experience.  Get the right guidance as soon as you can. Your choice is crucial.