Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
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...
View all articles

Judicially approved voyeurism

Sep 29, 2018, 22:03 PM
family law, divorce, litigants in person, transparency, reforms
Once upon a time, we were able to say to our clients - with a degree of confidence - that their laundry, dirty or otherwise, would be' safe with us.
Slug : judicially-approved-voyeurism
Meta Title : Judicially approved voyeurism
Meta Keywords : family law, divorce, litigants in person, transparency, reforms
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 20, 2014, 08:38 AM
Article ID : 106805
Once upon a time, we were able to say to our clients - with a degree of confidence - that their laundry, dirty or otherwise, would be safe with us.

We listed the exceptions of course. We explained that, in the highly unlikely event that they ended up with a defended divorce, they would be going through some pretty awful stuff in front of their husband or wife, the judge, their respective legal teams, and members of the press if it was a quiet news day. And if they happened to be Cheryl, or Simon or Rebekah, then even if it wasn't.

We said that the divorce petition itself might be open to scrutiny if they happened to be famous, or at least notorious, and Glen Mulcaire, or similar, had shown the presence of mind to bribe a badly paid court official. (Sometimes you don't even have to pay. I once went to the court office at the Registry to ask for some information and the person behind the counter wrote it down on a scrap of paper. On the back was part of the Duke and Duchess of York' s divorce petition.) 

Then there were injunctions. If our client hit their wife, we might say that there was a chance the subsequent proceedings to make them, or stop them, from doing something - or to send them to prison because they'd refused to take any notice of the Judge's stern words - could be heard in front of a reporter from the Daily Mail or, more likely, the Surrey Advertiser.

But that was about it. How much they were worth, or how much their husband hated them, would be canvassed in front of a pretty select audience.

No more. I think it all started when journalists began opining forcefully that the judges didn't know what they were doing. Why had this innocent woman been dragged back from
Why should the rest of us know what your clients earn? This is a court procedure and, contrary to what Chris Grayling appears to believe, it is not voluntary and it has nothing to do with criminality. It does involve giving evidence in court, but it's evidence that's both personal and often very poignant.

The only way families can guarantee that they keep their private affairs out of the public domain these days is not to get divorced, not to bother with the court process at all or to settle their cases before getting to the stage of a hearing in open court whether by negotiation or mediation.

The government's obsession with mediation is predicated on the idea that everyone's reasonable and fair if left to their own devices without interference from self serving lawyers. If only. Contrary to the media's perception, the greedy conspiring lawyers are responsible for a tiny number of these cases.

We all know that the financial cases that go to trial fall into one of the following categories:

  1. One or both sides is acting in person.
  2. One or both sides is represented by one of those lawyers (you know who you are) whose business model relies on discouraging settlement to increase revenue.
  3. There's so much money involved, together with a genuine point of law or method of valuation to be resolved, that it does make commercial sense to spend a small percentage on legal costs.
  4. One or both parties are so blinded by rage, or blind to reason, or both, that they cannot be helped to help themselves.
Keeping away from court, when they have neither the tools nor the inclination to settle, leaves families vulnerable. Either the ex wife or husband can make financial claims many years down the line, or people are left with no financial support at all because their ex partner simply refuses to offer anything unless compelled to do so.

So the reality is that the only way our clients can avoid disinterested nosey people from knowing what money they have, what they spend it on, and what they think of their husband and wife, is if they decide not to avail themselves of the justice system at all. And that isn't justice.

The views expressed by contributing authors are not necessarily those of Family Law or Jordan Publishing and should not be considered as legal advice.
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from