Legal Updates

Does the very concept of a judge being able to rule against a dead person’s last will and testament seem completely unacceptable to you? Perhaps you feel that this really is the final straw when it comes to our judiciary asserting their rulings in an area that really ought not to be touched? Upon first glance at this issue, I would have to admit to having felt very similar feelings myself; however, as with everything in life, especially law, things are never that straightforward, and there could well be circumstances at play that might just change your mind.

Take the case of Llott v. Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797 as an excellent example of circumstances that might just persuade you into sympathy for the judges in our top courts.

What do Psychic Sally, Cameron Diaz and McDonald’s all have in common? Each has had a brush with the UK laws on defamation. We will consider the merits of each of their cases below and review whether the law on defamation is useful to the ordinary person or just a tool used by the wealthy to suppress free speech. We will also review the effect of the recent changes to the law made by the Defamation Act 2013, which came into force in England and Wales on 1 January 2014. 

Anyone familiar with the intricacies of probate law was probably watching Joy Williams’ recent case for a half share in her deceased partner’s property with a rather sympathetic smirk stretching across their face. Little could they have known what the eventual outcome would be, especially when it turned out to be a ruling that was utterly unexpected by all.

Nevertheless, it would seem that Joy Williams, 69, has managed to achieve the impossible by securing a ruling in her case that many probate legal experts would say actually goes against the current law to quite a large extent. Ms Williams had been cohabiting with Norman Martin for some 18 years; however, the property was actually in the name of his estranged wife, to whom the estate went upon Mr Martin’s death back in 2012.

This month we will be looking at recent developments in the world of Wills and Probate.

Funeral Wishes

As I am currently in the middle of an in-depth course that deals with the law of obligations, I have to admit to feeling a little ashamed of myself for never having heard of Pigot’s Case – especially the rule and the impact it currently has on English contract law. I have gone through every last textbook connected to the course with a fine-tooth comb, and there is not a single mention of this case anywhere.

So, would this lack of knowledge about and coverage of the case of Winchcombe v. Pigot [1558-1774] All E.R. Rep. 50 mean that the rule established in this case is no longer applicable in our common law?

In light of a Family Justice Review that was undertaken, HM Courts and Tribunals Service have decided to create a new single Family Court in England and Wales. Effectively, this will pull this area of law away from the county courts and should mean that this division of the legal system is able to deal with relevant cases far more expeditiously and cost-effectively. 

Specifically, when it comes to applications for divorce in the future, applicants should find that this process will be far easier; especially when a decree nisi is not being contested by the other party. Instead of being sent to your local county court, you will now be required to forward an application for a decree nisi and statement to support the divorce to one of 11 regional centres that will be set up across England and Wales.

In recent months we have written about the major changes to how litigation clients are paying for legal advice. Legal services are now being unbundled so clients can “pick and mix” when they want to pay for legal advice and when they will do it themselves. This month we will consider how unbundled legal advice fits in with representation at court hearings. This type of representation is commonly called advocacy, and traditionally it is a service that has been provided by barristers or solicitors on behalf of their clients. Following changes to the scope of legal aid funding in April 2013, there has been widespread concern that individuals will be forced to represent themselves in court (known as litigants in person).

Can you believe that although we are well into the twenty-first century now, we find ourselves still considering an abhorrence of mankind that should have been eliminated back in the nineteenth century? Alas, it would appear that our species is always ready to prove its monstrous side in some way or other, and this is entirely why Theresa May (Home Secretary) and several other members of the House of Commons believed that modern slavery legislation was called for.

The main purpose of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is to criminalise any forms of human trafficking and modern slavery and to criminalise the transportation of an individual with the intention of exploiting them. The Act’s definition of slavery includes premature or arranged marriage, forced labour or the exploitation of child labour.

It has been a busy few months in the family courts, with a number of high-profile cases hitting the news. Previous articles are available in the monthly Journal archive from both September and October of this year, and we would encourage you to also read these to help you get to grips with this rapidly developing area of law.

1) Divorce and dishonesty

Two ex-wives who ‘accepted’ unfair divorce settlements appeared in the Supreme Court in October and their cases will now form a precedent for how dishonesty when disclosing assets will be treated in family courts.

In April 2015, new charges came into effect which have dramatically increased the cost of court proceedings in England and Wales. Since these charges were put in place, there has been much protest from civil liberty groups and legal professionals. Over 50 magistrates across England and Wales have stepped down as a direct result of the charges. They believe that the increase in the price of justice violates the core principles of the Magna Carta (which incidentally celebrated its 800th birthday in 2015).