The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Rafferty, Kitchin LJJ, 16 April 2013)
The father was granted contact with his two children on a supervised basis due to concerns that if unsupervised he would remove the children to his homeland.
The father applied for a variation of the contact arrangements because the contact agency was no longer willing to facilitate contact. He also applied to change the name of the younger child. The judge reduced the arrangements to only indirect contact and refused the change of name application without providing reasons. The father appealed.
The judge was under a duty to explore every possible option for continuing supervised contact and he had failed to do so. He had also overlooked his responsibility to rule on the change of name application.
The order for supervised contact was restored and the change of name application remitted to the county court.