Controversy Strikes
In a controversial move the Law Commission has proposed giving unmarried couples who liver together for two years or more automatic rights to half their partner's estate if they die.
As the law currently stands, couples who are unmarried have no such rights if one dies unexpectedly. There are als o proposals for cohabiting partners who break up to pay divorce -style maintenance if they have children or have been living together for two years.
Pressure for cohabitation law has been mounting in recent years, but legal commentators are split over the proposals. Family lawyer Baroness Deech says the rules "retard the emancipation of women" and degrade relationships:
"The proposals are a vote-loser for the Tories because the response to my views has been overwhelmingly favourable and half of the two million cohabitants will not want to be legally-bound... ... The subject is a moral issue and not a good one to tangle with."
Family law specialist Mark Piercy takes a different view and welcomes the proposals. He has commented that he is "glad to see ... legislation to give rights to cohabitants with children. At present, unmarried mothers are often left financially insecure and vulnerable when their relationships break down."
According to Piercy children can suffer hardship when the person responsible for their care is unable to obtain proper financial provision from the other parent. He feels legislation would not undermine the institution of marriage. His view is that:
"It might encourage a greater sense of responsibilty in those thinking of having children outside marriage. I do not think rights to make financial claims should be extended to former cohabitants where there are no children involved", he concludes.
Extracts taken from LNB News 02/12/2009.
Legal Challenge to Civil Partnerships
A hetrosexual couple has vowed to launch a legal challenge after their request to form a civil partnership was refused by Islington Council on 27 November 2009.
Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are a young couple who want the same legal rights as a husband and wife but do not want to enter an institution closed to homosexuals.
They had applied for a civil partnership at Islington Town Hall using their initials and surnames. The Town Hall reused their application because the Council said it could only sanction civil partnerships between partners of the same sex.
Sarah Anticoni, a family law specialist at London firm Charles Russell, says:
"Their actions are a welcome attempt to highlight a gaping anomaly in family law. Whilst there is a clear body of law for married couples and those who have entered into a civil partnership for financial provision on relationship breakdown or one party dying, hetrosexual cohabitants remain unprotected."
Resolution, a specialist organisation representing 6000 family lawyers nationwide, has campaigned for years for the introduction of law to provide a safety net for such couples.
Ms Anticoni feels most people are of the view that after living together for a minimum period of time or having a child together, couples will have demonstrated a committed relationship. She goes on further to say that:
"Those couples should have an automatic right to make financial claims if the relationship breaks down, unless the couple choose to 'opt out'." Ms Anticoni concludes "surviving cohabitants need further protection on death although the Law Commission is looking at this particular area, statutory change for cohabitants is now urgently needed."
Extracts taken from LNB News 04/12/09.
In The News
The headline read ‘Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the World’s most irritating actress?’ The article went on further to say ‘she caught a nasty does of Hollywooditis… Kate made a big point of mentioning her size, over and over again, as if she were ok with it, which of course she wasn’t.’ It went on to make a further point about her body: ‘come on Kate, just be honest about how hard it is to be that size – don’t pretend you are still normal.’
Kate asserted that the article indicated she had lied publicly about her exercise regime.
The Daily Mail made an offer of amends which was accepted and Kate sought permission to read a unilateral statement in open court. The newspaper opposed the application on the grounds that Kate had accepted the offer of amends.
The central question was whether an application to read a statement in open court, following acceptance of an offer, represented a continuation of proceedings, and therefore fall foul of s3(2) of the 1996 Act. The statement that Kate wanted to make referred to the offer of amends and stated , inter alia, that ‘the article falsely claimed that the claimant had publicly lied about her exercise regime,’ that the newspaper has caused her a great deal of distress; and that the article was offensive in tone.
The Court ruled: The use of a statement in open court had long been seen as part of the settlement process and parties who settled could be expected to be allowed to read a statement in open court unless there was some sufficient reason causing the court to refuse to approve that course. It would be quite artificial to regard it as a continuation of the proceedings since continuation was the antithesis of settlement. There was no good reason to make an exception to the broad wording of para 6.1 of the Practice Direction to CPR pt 53.
In this case, it was important to recognise, in the light of the offer to amends regime, and the explanation of the function statements in open court given by authority, that what Kate was seeking to do was not to enforce the offer but rather to take a separate and independent step which had long been recognised as an incident to the settlement of libel proceedings generally. There was nothing unfair to the newspaper in permitting the statement to be made. Accordingly, Kate should be allowed to publicise her understanding of the settlement. In all the circumstances, there was no injustice to the newspaper in permitting her to make the statement.
A statement in open court would be ordered in the context of a settlement under the offer of amends regime.
The judgement is available at: [2009] EWHC 2735 (QB)
Wales - A Distinct Legal Jurisdiction
A preliminary draft of the paper has been presented at various meetings of the Wales Committee of the Law Society. The draft paper has highlighted amongst other things that:
‘A vibrant Welsh legal service is a vital element in promoting local competitive advantage and also in protecting the integrity of the emerging Welsh legal jurisdiction.
Average firm size in Wales is lower than any region in England and this compromises the development of economies of scope and scale among firms in Wales.
The stark conclusion to emerge from the analysis of legal service supply is the weak or non-existent provision of key areas of business law. Many of these are areas which are critical to growth in the modern knowledge based economy.
The current distribution of legal services in the UK indicates that Wales us near the bottom of the UK league table in terms of both the number of people employed and the percentage of the local labour force in legal services. Wales needs more legal expertise and it needs it most in specialist areas of the law.
If you would like to access the paper in full visit http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/.