I act for Local Authorities on a fairly regular basis and have recently conducted with colleagues a 4-day training course for Social Workers. The reality is that, whilst there are some bad social workers, as there ae bad lawyers, shop assistants and doctors, the vast vast majority work over the hours in the hardest of circumstances with those in most need. The pay of social work is not good (save perhaps for Directors!), the clients are never grateful for the intervention and the work prssures placed upon them due to chronic under-funding of the departments over many years, is terrible. That is to say nothing of the red-tape that leaves many social workers longing for the days when they could actaully focus on service-users.

The relaity is that whilst mistakes are made and things are missed, it is not due to individual failings but an inevitable consequence of an under-funded system where many are de-moralised and unable to focus on the key tasks. Another review and yet more threats of ’special measures’ will ensue, but what is really required is a government that takes social care seriously and is willing to put more resources behind these over-worked professionals. 

The case concerned a Husband who had been in business with two of the Wife’s brothers. This business relationship had seemingly gone well for a few years and in fact some of the Husband’s businesses were based at premises owned by the brothers and also, importantly, his PC was linked to server space on the brothers’ businesses servers.

When the Husband’s marriage to the brothers’ sister broke down, the brothers then allegedly took it upon themselves to log-in to the Husband’s files (which were password protected, albeit that they knew the password), and they downloaded over various dates a range of documents numbering somewhere between 250,000 - 2.5m pages of documentation when printed! The brothers stated that they had done this owing to concern that the Husband would not properly disclose his wealth in forthcoming proceedings.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Husband then applied to the Court for injuntive relief to prevent onward transmission of the information to any party, including the Wife and her solicitors. This claim was brought in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court rather than the Family Division as that was the appropriate jurisdiction given it was the Wife’s brothers, rather than the Wife, who had taken these actions. In due course the matter came before Eady J when the Husband sought summary judgment on his claim for injunctive relief.

The Brothers ran, it is fair to say, every defence under the sun, however common sense prevailed and a clearly unimpressed Mr Justice Eady found no difficulty in deciding that such wholesale taking of password-protected documents regarding personal finances and even including legally privileged material, was simply not acceptable. The learned Judge ruled that without doubt there could be no defence to the injunctive relief sought debarring the brothers’ from transmitting the information onwards, and it was always open to them to seek preservation Orders to ensure that the information was not destroyed so as to ensure in due course justice was done in the family proceedings.

Family lawyers are well used to the odd bit of ‘accidentally’ opened mail being shown to them, but this was breathtaking in scale. I suspect that, sadly, a very bitter divorce is on the way!

The thing is that in this country, we thankfully haven’t quite gone the way of the US in having divorce lawyers as per the movies who are mini-celebrities in themselves.

As such my notice was attracted when I received “the lawyer” daily e-mail today as it described how Peter Andre has instructed a relative newcomer to the British divorce lawyer club to represent in him in his future publicity-fest. What was interesting was that the e-mail listed the ‘top’ british divorce lawyers, as follows:

Fiona Shackleton (of Payne Hicks Beach - and Shacka of Macca fame!)

Helen Ward (of Manches)

Mark Harper (of Withers)

Raymond Tooth (of Sears Tooth)

Maggie Rae & Liz Vernon (of Clintons)

Sandra Davis (of Mishcon de Reya)

and now … Stephen Foster (of Stewarts Law)

These names are indeed those lawyers dealing with the types of client that lend themselves to the ’sleazy divorce’ stories that one sees in the tabloids (and for the record I don’t think the above ‘good and great’ or indeed any divorce lawyers in the UK are ’sleazy lawyers’). However, the description of them as the ‘magic circle’ of divorce lawyers is one I would question.

Whilst the above are certainly superb lawyers, I would raise the other 99.9% of practitioners who deal with the small to medium cases which do not make the headlines. Actually, to my mind these lawyers are the true celebs as cases with ‘oodles’ of money are straightforward - trying to make non-existenet sums stretch is far more complicated (and emotionally challenging and heartbreaking), than deciding who gets the LA penthouse.

The programme explored the changing trends in marriage and indeed whether marriage has a future in the 21st Century. It’s certainly true that marriage rates are dropping and co-habitation is increasing, but the programme suggested (as well as raising various humorous takes on marriage), that in fact in 25 years only 10% of the country may be in marriage and instead there may be renewable contracts.

Particularly when Valentines Day is only just behind us, it was surprising (and indeed somewhat refreshing) to hear such a non lovey-dovey take on marriage. That said, of course this country’s political parties appear desperate to support ‘the [married] family’ at the moment and it does appear that the stage is set for yet more controversy. The documentary raised the issue of parenting having been divorced from marriage and this scene which is evidenced in family courts up and down the country on a daily basis  is certainly the root of the politicians’ interest in it all.

Is marriage heading for the rocks? I suspect not as, given I’m something of a romantic (and indeed an engaged romantic!), I believe there will always be a place for the ‘mystical’ side of marriage. However, what people must realise is that whilst marriage may be seen as an outdated tradition and divorce law is chaotic, sadly i legal terms cohabitation law is potentially even more of a mess.

PS - One wonderful thing about the documentary was the title music - “Housewife’s Alphabet” by Peggy Seeger, well worth 79p! 

It’s an intri guing and controversial issue. Have a look at sex addicts anonymous for more!  

I don’t say for a moment that English Sharia courts would condone such practices, but stories like this do show the very different vaulues other systems can represent and the need to keep English Law’s independence.

The difficulty lies in the very nature of consent orders which, whilst judicial acts, are ultimately the least safe exercise of judicial discretion. The reality of everyday court life is that when a proposed consent order is placed before the Judge, there is indeed a cursory check of the information before the court to ensure that the order is fair, however rarely is there any in-depth investigation and the court relies upon the truthfulness of the parties and the skill of the parties’ advisors.

The danger is that whilst agreements reached via a Sharia law ”mediation” (or indeed any other type of mediation) may appear superficially fair, such that they get approved by an English Judge; there may very well be different principles etc brought into play. There is a risk that women used to being subservient may well see a financial settlement as ‘fair’ yet without proper financial disclosure in a Sharia court the Husband is then free to put what he wishes in the English disclosure and all the Judge will see will be two parties in agreement. Likewise in relation to orders regarding children, those used to being subservient may well be subject to principles which might offend English law in reaching an agreement that, to an outsider, is not inherently wrong without investigation of the actual circumstances. 

The truth is that mediation other than under Sharia works because there is faith that mediators have remained neutral and ensured the parties truly consent and are not pressured. Sharia court mediations (let alone hearings) are implictly dangerous due to the different starting premises that apply (a woman’s role is in the home etc), and the position women often find themselves in whilst ending relationships (ostracised, used to being underdogs etc). 

Recognising anything to do with Sharia Law is inherently complicated and there is a great risk if the waters are muddied, as suggested by the Junior Minister, injustices will occur which, particularly in family law, could have devastaing consequences for the lives of those involved. The true difficulty is that unless the parties tell the Judge that Sharia was used he would be none the wiser.    

Sadly the High Court ruled that the claim was not made out as though no specific guidance is available (and it certainly is not), the general guidance by way of the Act and normal prosecuting guidelines are such as to provide for Ms Purdy’s human rights (seemingly despite the fact there is no straight answer!). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted so the case may not be over, however the Judges concluded by stating that it is for Parliament to act.

The difficulty with this is that controversial matters such as assisted suicide or cohabitation are very unlikely to ever receive proper parliamentary consideration. This issue is particularly pertinent to family lawyers as of course may ‘family law’ issues often fall within the politically sensitive arena. Cohabitation reform has been needed for many years and even when it was referred to the Law Commission they at first said it must be a matter for Parliament and no fresh legislation has yet emerged.

It does make you wish for an alternative method of legislating these areas where political hot potatoes are forever passed around and the law becomes massively outof date until judicial activism eventually fills the gap. Respecting Parliament is all well and good (and indeed proper), but Parliament must stop ducking issues and have the tough debates that are needed to update the statute book.

The action was brought by the Nebraska State Governor for an injunction against God to prevent “death, destruction and terrorisation” by God. (I do know terrorisation isn’t a word but it’s an american case!). The concerning thing however has to be the ground that the case was thrown out by Judge Polk: “Given that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed …”.

Surely the case ought to have been thrown out for reasons other than that God doesn’t have an address to serve the papers and besides, if he’s truly omnipresent surely he’d have known anyway!

My thanks to Pete Doughty in Chambers for bringing this one to my attention and for anyone interested in employment law he’s just started a new employment law blog.

The alleged proposals are concerning for family lawyers (and family court clients) for three reasons however:

- Closing court centres and cutting court staff can only lead to poorer access to justice. The reality is that outside London and other major urbanisations, it is important to have a local court. Often family clients have extremely limited resources and serious childcare needs. The prospect of forcing parents etc. to travel 30 miles + just because their local court was closed will have serious implications (I’m ignoring the fact that owing to legal aid cuts clients in rural areas may have to go similar distances just to find a specialist lawyer!). 

- Equally further redundancies among court staff will only lead to a poorer service at court. Court Service employees are not paid large sums as it is and they are, for the most part, dedicated to their jobs. The system is, sadly, coping with far more work than it is truly fit for, and fewer staff can only lead to greater delays and a higher proportion of cock-ups.

- The article appears to state cuts will be made in “double representation” in public law (Care) cases. The very idea that there is double representation is a fallacy. A wheeze of CAFCASS legal has been for some time that if, in a care case, a Guardian is supporting the Local Authority they do not need separate representation. This is untrue. A Children’s Guardian may well support the plans of a Local Authority but they may well do so for different reasons and arrive at decisions from an entirely different perspective (that of the child), and it is lunacy to say that the court is not entitled to have that differing perspective enunciated by a dedicated representative to make sure the court takes on board what is said.

- The other avenue for “double representation” may be to prevent parents having different represenation if they run the same case. The difficulty is that there are truly very few care cases where parents do run the same argument. Any case in which domestic violence is a live issue (a huge proportion of care cases), is a case where separate representation is needed. Likewise cases involving sexual abuse or non-accidental injury require separate representation (invariably even if both parents admit such acts one will claim they were co-erced by the other). Equally in Care Cases the key decision is usually eventual placement of the child and parents (assuming they are separated), almost always have different strengths and weaknesses and  these need to be put forward vigorously. 

Ultimately in relation to family law (and particuarly care), it is understandable that the government will feel pressured to cut costs; however it must be realised in Whitehall that family law delivery ‘on the cheap’ will lead to huge injustice (and in Care cases it is strongly arguable wrongful permanent removal of a child is far more serious than a period of wrongful imprisonment). Further, when so many social problems are said to be due to children being given poor / unfortunate parenting, a small cut in the Ministry of Justices budget may well require huge increases in other areas of government activity, not to mention a further loss of social cohesion.

When will it be realised that court staff and family lawyers are, on the whole, dedicated and hard-working professionals desperately trying to ensure the system remains fit for purpose.