13/06/13

Andrzej Bojarski to speak at ancilliary relief conference – “Financial Remedies in Complex and Offshore Divorces” on Friday 14th June in Jersey

Andrzej Bojarski is to speak at a conference hosted by Hanson Renouf on Friday, 14th June 2013 at the Radisson Blu Hotel, Jersey.

The conference is entitled “Financial Remedies in Complex and Offshore Divorces” and will examine various aspects of financial issues that arise upon divorce, and in particular will consider: “piercing the corporate veil” and to what extent company assets can be taken into account on divorce; as well as focussing on trusts, both on and offshore where again the interplay with family law will be explored; disclosure, consideration about how financial information can be obtained to assist in family law cases; arbitration, a method of dispute resolution in family law which has only recently been adopted in England; aswell as exploring particuliarites in Jersey and Guernsey among other topics.

For full details of the conference, how to book and details of other speakers, please go to http://www.hansonrenouf.com/news-and-events/events/hanson-renouf-to-host-ancillary-relief-conference

12/06/13

Supreme Court success for Hannah Markham and Kate Tompkins

The long awaited judgement in Re B was handed down this morning seeing the dismissal to the challenge against the Local Authority’s care plan for adoption of a little girl removed from the care of her parents at birth. Hannah Markham has represented the local authority from the outset initially being successful in the High Court. Alison Russell QC led Hannah in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and Kate Tompkins stepped in as an additional junior when the parties were given only 18 days to prepare for the Supreme Court.

The case sees clarification of the role of the appellate courts in care cases and in particular those where adoption is the outcome sought by the local authority. A new criterion for the test for appeals is laid down and the summary test being that the Judge in the lower courts was ‘wrong’.

The issue of proportionality and the application of Convention law in care cases is considered with the court determining on a majority that it is not for the appellate courts to consider proportionality anew at appeal but rather to see whether the Judge at first instance had been wrong and or failed to apply the Convention principles.

Hannah and Kate will be summarising the judgment in a forthcoming article in Family law week.

04/06/13

Andrzej Bojarski to present Live Webinar on 6th June – “Making the Future Predictable? Nuptial Agreements and Cohabitation Agreements: What Makes Them Fair and Enforceable.”

Andrzej Bojarski, Head of the 36 Bedford Row Family Team, is to present a Live Webinar on 6th June from 12.30 – 2pm:

“Making the Future Predictable? Nuptial Agreements and Cohabitation Agreements: What Makes Them Fair and Enforceable.”

Andrzej will speak for approximately 85 minutes then attendees will have the chance to ask questions by typing them into the “chat room” part of the webinar software.

For full details, please go to:

http://www.sgcl.co.uk/SG/FairAgreements.html

22/05/13

Felicity Gerry to speak at the Minority Lawyers’ Seminar on Career Development and Social Media

Date: 18 June 2013

Time: 18:00 – 20:00

The Law Society’s Hall, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL

Link to event:

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/for-the-bar/conferences,-training-and-other-events/2013/june/the-minority-lawyers’-seminars-career-development-and-social-media/

21/05/13

Martin Kingerley succeeds in the Court of Appeal

Martin represented a mother who was accused of causing fractures to the skull of her baby. After a finding of fact hearing the mother was exonerated of any blame for the injuries. The Children’s Guardian appealed against the judgement. Martin successfully responded to the appeal which led to its dismissal. Full judgement is currently awaited from the Court of Appeal.

21/05/13

36 Bedford Row Legal Walk Success

On 20th May, the 36 Bedford Row Legal Walk team joined over 7,000 other lawyers to take part in the 10km walk around London’s legal landmarks from the Royal Courts of Justice.

The team had fantastic turnout, raising over £1000 for the London Legal Support Trust and the event was thoroughly enjoyed by all.

A very big thank you to all those who took part and those who donated to this fantastic cause.

Some of Team 36BR outside the Royal Courts of Justice

(Mark Roscoe, Andrzej Bojarski, James Collins, Geoff Sullivan, Miriam Benitez, Hannah Markham, Henry Markham–Hare, Zoe MacQueen, William Harbage QC)

21/05/13

Felicity Gerry writes for Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on the Barbara Hewson affair & deals with the age of consent, anonymity of rape suspects & defending old men

Link to article:

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/blog/Defending-Old-Men-and-Criminalizing-Children

Felicity was also interviewed on the Hewson affair on ITV Daybreak, BBC Radio London & appeared on the LBC Radio phone in with Ian Dale.

20/05/13

Further recognition for 36 Bedford Row in the CPS Specialist Panels Lists

The CPS have announced the long awaited results of the CPS Specialist Advocates Panels in Serious and Organised Crime, Proceeds of Crime and Fraud. Leading the way at grade 4 on all 3 panels is Joe Spicer, with Sam Mainds joining him at the same level on the fraud panel and Sarah Gaunt on the Serious Crime panel. New silk David Herbert Q.C. is recognised as a grade 4 on the Serious Crime panel (application having been made before the silk announcement). Completing the specialist team, Cameron Crowe and Catarina Sjolin are selected at level 2 for the Proceeds of Crime panel and Emilie Pottle at the same level for fraud.

10/05/13

Connors Servitude trial passes jail sentences following Frances Mary Oldham QC’s successful prosecution in the UK’s first trial on servitude and forced labour in July 2012

Last July, Frances Mary Oldham QC successfully led the Prosecution to convict Tommy Connors Sr and his son Patrick of conspiring to hold a person in servitude, conspiring to require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

On 7 May 2013, both men were sentenced to be jailed for eight years and five years respectively.

This follows the sentencing of James John Connors, 34, and Josie Connors, 31, who were jailed for 11 years and four years respectively at the trial last year. The husband and wife, who is the daughter of Tommy Connors Sr, were convicted of keeping vulnerable men in servitude and requiring them to perform forced labour. James John Connors – “Big Jim” –was additionally convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

On passing sentence on Tuesday, Judge Michael Kay said Tommy Connors Sr had targeted men who were “homeless or addicted and isolated” whom he could exploit, recruiting at soup kitchens and off the street with the promise of paid work, food and lodgings – “a monstrous and callous deceit”.

Prosecutor Frances Mary Oldham QC previously summed up the case against the group by saying:

“Physical violence and the threat of such violence, whether spoken or unspoken, was regularly used to ensure compliance with demands for work, to stop any attempt to claim the promised wages and to instill a fear of retribution if any worker attempted to escape the clutches of the Connors family.

The victims, and I deliberately call them that, were exploited because they were among the most vulnerable in society. They were controlled in such a way that in many cases they could not see the extent of the control. They became conditioned so that these defendants could earn an awful lot of money.

A number of words may spring to mind to describe what was happening. They may not, in the strict sense, have been slaves but they were not free men.”

08/05/13

Piers von Berg publishes an article on judicial review of police authorities’ decisions to retain or disclose personal data on The Justice Gap blog

To read the full article click here

In March, there were two important and successful judicial review challenges to the systems used by police authorities to disclose and retain personal data and information (T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2013] EWCA Civ 25 and Catt and T v ACPO [2013] EWCA Civ 192). In response to the first case the Government has proposed reforms to the system for disclosing criminal records. However, these reforms do not go far enough to protect individuals’ rights to privacy and family life. The latter case demonstrates that retention of mere data rather than DNA and fingerprints can breach Article 8. It also shows in light of the decision in T the wider scope of the problem in that the police may disclose data that should not have been retained.

07/05/13

Richard Wilson QC argues in High Court test case that the UK Government’s Shortage Occupation List is in breach of European Union and UK Constitutional law.

In Rostami v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, a test case in the Administrative Court, Richard Wilson QC is arguing for Judicial Review of the Government’s Occupation Shortage List on the grounds that the imposition of the list on asylum seekers is unlawful.

The Shortage Occupation List specifies a restricted list of highly skilled occupations with minimum salaries. The United Kingdom’s Immigration Rules stipulate that asylum seekers may only take up employment in a post which is, at the time the offer of employment is accepted, included on the list of “shortage occupations” published by the UK Border Agency.

The issues are whether the imposition of the Shortage Occupation List on all asylum seekers is a lawful implementation of the European Union’s Reception Directive 2003/09 EC and/or compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (private component). Additionally, there is an issue as to whether the Shortage Occupation List was properly laid before Parliament prior to its provisions being imposed on the claimant.

A large number of other Judicial Review cases have been stayed pending a decision in this test case.

03/05/13

Felicity Gerry writes in The Times on vicarious liability for historic sexual abuse

To read the full article on victims of abuse seeking criminal justice and why many will have to look to the civil courts instead click here

02/05/13

Article: Why consensual sex may still be rape, by Felicity Gerry

Following a report by the BBC that the law on consent has been further defined by the Lord Chief Justice Felicity Gerry writes for the Halisbury Law Exchange.

To read Felicity’s article click here

25/04/13

Richard Wilson QC and Grainne Mellon succeed in the Court of Appeal in an important case on fiduciary duties and misuse of confidential information

In a judgment handed down today, Richard Wilson QC and Grainne Mellon have been successful in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in an important case on the misuse of confidential (private) information.

In Walsh v. Shanahan [2013] EWCA Civ 411, Richard and Grainne appeared for the defendants and were responding to an appeal from the decision of a judge of the High Court (Chancery Division). The case concerned the scope of fiduciary duties, the misuse of confidential (private) information and the principles governing remedies (account of profits, damages, restitution).

The principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in Walsh v. Shanahan are of general application across the law, including:
• contracts (commercial, employment, consumer, domestic, and private contracts)
• tort, equity and trusts, fiduciary duties, directors duties, agency, family law
• human rights (Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the right to respect for private and family life).

22/04/13

James Collins has successfully defended a Nullity Petition brought by a wife against her husband under s12 (b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on the basis that the husband had wilfully refused to consummate the marriage.

In a most unusual case before HHJ Atkins at Croydon County Court, each party to a marriage of almost three years standing stated that the other had wilfully refused to consummate the marriage. It was not in issue that the parties had never co–habited but rather that they would meet up and spend time together in hotels. What happened during those liaisons and at the hotels was, however, hotly contested. The wife’s case was that she had tried and done everything in her power to get her husband to have sex but that her husband was simply not interested and that no sexual activity whatsoever had taken place. The husband’s case was that the couple had in fact had various forms of sex but that full sexual intercourse, whilst attempted, had not been completely successful which explained why a medical report provided by the wife indicated that she was still was a virgin. The husband also asserted that his wife on numerous occasions refused his offers and requests to further attempt full penetrative sex and that she was content to settle instead for different forms of consensual sexual activity.

Given their diametrically opposed positions each party had to be examined and cross–examined at length which called for sensitive and delicate handling. In the event the Judge preferred the husband’s evidence and concluded that the wife must fail in her Petition.

In A v J (Nullity Proceedings) [1989] 1 FLR 110 Anthony Lincoln J. stated: “Nullity proceedings are nowadays rare, though not wholly extinct.” In the intervening 24 years such proceedings have become even rarer with very few contested Hearings coming before the Courts. The instant case was even more unusual in having a public law dimension in that the wife was a German national so issues arose as to the husband’s rights under the EEA Regulations 1996.

For further details on the learning in this area see:

1.     Horton v Horton [1947] 2 All ER 871
2.     S v S [1956] P 1
3.     Jodla v Jodla [1960] 1 WLR 236
4.     W (K) v W [1967] 1 WLR 1554
5.     Singh v Singh [1971] P 226
6.     Kaur v Singh [1972] 1 WLR 105
7.     Potter v Potter (1975) Fam Law 161
8.     Ford v Ford (1987) Fam Law 232
9.     A v J (Nullity Proceedings) [1989] 1 FLR 110

21/04/13

We congratulate Kathryn Howarth on her appointment to the Serious Fraud Office C Panel