CIVIL PARTNERSHIP – Five Years On

It is both hard to believe that it is five years since civil partnerships became legal and conversely that there was a time, not so long ago, when same-sex marriages were not allowed at all. Five years on, the Office for National Statistics has published a review looking in detail at the characteristics of those entering into civil partnerships.

It is no surprise that there was a deluge of Civil Partnerships after the introduction of The Civil Partnership Act in December 2005. Most of the first Civil Partnerships were between men but this has now evened out and there are just as many women “tying the knot”.

Interestingly, civil partners are less likely to “divorce” than their heterosexual counterparts. It may well be because statistically civil partners tend to wait until they are a bit older and wiser, though according the statistics the average age is now decreasing.

Of course, the analysis over the last five years does not perhaps paint a true picture of the position. For example, those who married shortly after the Act was introduced may have been in long and strong relationships for a significant period before. They will continue to gather statistics.

It is encouraging that most British people now accept same-sex marriage but very sad indeed that fewer people approve of same-sex couples adopting children.

At Hanne & Co, we have a large family department with solicitors who can advise on all legal aspects of civil partnership including pre-nuptial agreements, dissolution and adoption. Please do call on 020 7228 0017 or email us at info@hanne.co.uk

SQUATTING – How Hanne & Co can Help

Events at Dale Farm have put squatting in the news. However, there has also been increased press coverage recently of squatters’ rights in relation to residential property following recent high profile cases including that of the Harley Street doctor, Dr. Cockerell, and his wife. 

Following a recent ruling in which the Judge ordered a London council to publish a list of the empty homes in its borough, Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, referred to proposed Government consultations on making squatting a criminal offence, stating that he wished to “shut the door on so-called squatters rights once and for all and end the misery, expense and hassle that far too many people have had to endure”. 

However, it should be noted that it is already a criminal offence to squat a person’s home or a property that a person intends to occupy as their home. This is governed by the Criminal Law Act 1977. Under that Act a home owner already in occupation of the property is termed a “Displaced Residential Occupier” and a person intending to take up occupation as a “Protected Intended Occupier”. In both cases it is a criminal offence for a squatter to remain in the property once they are made aware of the existence of either a displaced residential occupier or a protected intended occupier. In such circumstances the police have the power to arrest, without warrant, any squatter who refuses to leave after a request to do so has been made. Furthermore, the occupiers themselves are entitled to use force to re-enter and reasonable force to remove the squatters from the property.

Squatting a vacant property that is not a home is not, at present, a criminal offence. However, the person with a right to the property does have remedies in the civil courts and they are entitled to apply for an Interim Possession Order which is likely to be granted within a matter of days. Once such an order has been served on the squatters they must vacate within 24 hours. Failure to do so becomes a criminal offence in itself.

Whilst Government moves to both clarify and strengthen laws surrounding squatters are likely to be welcomed by many, it should not be overlooked that, in many circumstances, the criminal law already applies. This is in addition to the civil remedies available.

If your home or property is being squatted the experienced Housing Law solicitors at Hanne & Co are able and happy to assist. You can contact us for confidential advice and assistance on 020 7228 0017 or by email at info@hanne.co.uk

UP AND AWAY – Recent European Court Decisions on Employment Law

There have been two recent European Court of Justice judgments relating to the employment of airline pilots. Although the facts were very specific to our friends at the front of the plane some of the principles would apply to those of us sitting back in cattle class.

The first case is Williams & others-v- British Airways. This was referral to the ECJ by our own Supreme Court. The question put the ECJ was whether holiday pay could include other allowances on top of the basic pay. The ECJ decided that allowances that were paid for any "inconvenient aspect" of the job should be included in holiday pay. The example given was for flying allowances paid to pilots which should be included whereas allowances for time spent away from home may not be allowed.

The principal that exercised the ECJ was that there should be no deterrence to people taking holiday and that holiday pay should be very much akin to pay received whilst at work. This judgment may therefore be applicable to other employments where allowances are paid.

The second case again regarding pilots is Prigge and others –v- Deutsche Lufthansa AG. The ECJ held that a German rule prohibiting commercial pilots flying after the age of 60 was counter to the Equal Treatment Directive. Reasonably the Court held that air traffic safety was a legitimate objective but they were not convinced that a blanket ban on pilots over the age of 60 was proportionate especially as there are international rules allowing commercial pilots to work until the age of 65. 

Again this has general relevance as once again the Court has decided that age limits should be proportionate to their objectives. Also this judgement may give hope to some others who fancy a second career navigating between the clouds before we end up playing the harp on one of them.

Contact Hanne & Co's employment law solicitors on 020 7228 0017 for any employment law issues.

Possession Proceedings against Rioters

The Housing Department at Hanne & Co has considerable experience in representing tenants in possession proceedings. Following the recent riots a number of local authorities have indicated that they will seek to evict people convicted of riot related offences. 

Where a tenant of a local authority or a person residing or visiting that property has been found guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance or has been convicted of an offence in the locality of the property, then a possession order can be made by the County Court. When deciding whether or not grounds for possession have been made out the County Court would need to determine whether or not the conduct in question is likely to have caused a nuisance or annoyance or whether an offence has been committed. The conduct or offence has to be in the locality.

The fact that the rioter is not the tenant does not prevent the local authority from bringing possession proceedings. So long as that rioter is either residing with or visiting a tenant the local authority can take possession proceedings against that tenant regardless of whether the tenant knew what that person was doing.

Whilst there are various defences that can be raised in possession proceedings, given the effect on communities of the rioting, Judges are likely to consider any possession cases being brought based on these offences as being very serious. This means that it is more than possible that parents of a child who is convicted of such an offence carried out locally to where they live could face eviction even if they were unaware that their child was committing an offence.

If you are a council tenant and your local authority is bringing possession proceedings against you the Housing Solicitors at Hanne & Co are available to assist you. We are one of the few law firms in South London with a contract from the Legal Services Commission in the category of housing and we can offer public funding (previously known as Legal Aid) to clients who are eligible. We also offer competitive private rates. Contact us for confidential advice and assistance on 0207228 0017 or email info@hanne.co.uk

Criminal Sentences for Looters

It has been a number of weeks since the recent ‘looting’ disturbances that took place in town centres throughout the country. In this time, courts have dealt with unprecedented numbers of people accused of crimes relating to these disturbances. It is clear that the Courts have sought to reflect the widespread public anger in relation to these incidents through their treatment of the accused. 

The latest figures released by the Ministry of Justice show that the number of defendants remanded in custody nationally by courts has increased from a rate of 10% to 70%. For those who have been sentenced by the Magistrates’ Court, over 50% of defendants have been given prison sentences averaging four and half months each. This can be compared with a ‘normal’ rate of imprisonment of approximately 12%, and an average prison sentence of two and a half months. This increase in the use of custodial sentences has put enormous strain on the Prison Service, as the prison population has increased by 1,350 in just three weeks. 

Many defendants have had their cases sent to the Crown Court, where judges have higher sentencing powers, to be sentenced. While most of these cases have yet to be dealt with, Crown Court judges are passing longer than usual sentences in order to deter people from engaging in this disorder in the future. 

Crown Court judges are following guidance made by The Recorder of Manchester in coming to sentence offenders. These guidelines refer to the usual offences that would have taken place during incidents of ‘looting’. In the case of Regina v Carter & Others, the Recorder set out the following guidelines:

a. Organiser of riot or commercial burglaries 8 years upwards
b. Burglar who takes part in breaking into premises 4 -7 years
c. Arson, lives of others in actual danger 6 years upwards
d. Arson; otherwise 3 -7 years
e. Robbery
i. with firearm, or where serious injury caused 7 -9 years
ii. with other weapon 3 -7 years
iii. no weapon/no significant injury 2 -5 years
f. Burglar who enters after others have broken in 2 -5 years
g. Theft of goods in street 1-4 years
h. Handling
i. Professional fence 2 -5 years
ii. Receiving on streets 1 -4 years
iii. Receiving elsewhere community penalty- 3 years
i. S 47/s 20 Assaults on Police/Fire-fighters/Paramedic/Those trying to prevent crime or protect property
i. If significant injury/weapon used 3- 4 years
ii. No significant injury/no weapon 1 – 3 years
j. Violent disorder 2-4 years
k. Affray 1-2.5 years

These are applicable to first time adult offenders who have been found guilty after a trial.

Because of the Courts’ harsh sentencing policies, anyone who becomes involved in a police investigation should take immediate legal advice.  

The criminal solicitors at Hanne & Co are available to assist you either at an interview under caution at the police station, or at Court in the event that you are charged. Please contact the specialist criminal department at Hanne & Co Solicitors on 020 7228 0017, or on our 24 hour emergency mobile phone number 07710 454125.

When is a garden fork not a garden fork?

This is a question posed in the House of Lords in a very famous housing case (Street –v- Mountford) in 1985. Lord Templeman memorably stated that “a five pronged implement for manual digging is a “fork”, whatever the manufacturer chooses to call it”.

A similar question has been asked very recently by the Supreme Court in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher . This case hinged on whether an individual was an “employee” or a self-employed contractor and therefore a “worker” for the purposes of employment legislation. The Supreme Court came to very similar view as to the Lord Templeman 26 years ago.

This case concerned 20 people who valetted cars. They paid their own tax and national insurance and also had to purchase uniforms and materials. Their contract said that they were not obliged to attend work although the original Tribunal did find that in practice they were expected to attend everyday and provide the services personally. 

However, despite all the written evidence and the fact that the Tribunal had held that these people had entered into a contract with their eyes wide open, the Supreme Court held that the reality of the relationship trumped any written contract. They were in reality obliged to provide their services themselves (albeit that there was a substitution clause in the contract) and this coupled with another accepted test of employment that of control, i.e. they were told what to do and when to do it, made them employees.

So the lesson to be learned is that the most important thing in a relationship between employer and employee is what happens in reality and not necessarily a cleverly constructed contract that seeks to preclude their status as employees. It is vital that both employers and employees/contractors are sure of the latter’s status and the implications that flow from this.

If you need advice on how the courts would interpret a situation and hence your obligations and exposure as an employer or employee then please do contact the experienced employment lawyers at Hanne & Co Solicitors on tel: 020 7228 0017 or by email to info@hanne.co.uk

Rising Rents but Added Responsibilities

Recent reports show that private sector letting rents are growing faster than sale prices in London. The average rental for a private letting in London rose 16% in 2010. 

You may be considering renting out your property or purchasing on a buy-to-let basis. However, the obligations on private landlords are considerable, ranging from compliance with the Health and Housing Safety Rating System to the regulations relating to the protection of deposits to statutory procedures for regaining possession. For example, UK Energy & Climate Secretary Chris Hulme has recently announced changes to the new Energy Bill which means from April 2016 landlords will not be able to refuse tenants, or local authorities, reasonable requests to improve their property’s energy efficiency. 

At Hanne & Co our housing department has a wealth of experience and knowledge of Landlord & Tenant law. We can provide you with sensible and cost effective advice on all aspects of private letting from drafting tenancy agreements tailored to your specific requirements to advising you on your statutory obligations as a landlord to dealing with problem tenants.

Please feel free to enquire with one of our Housing law team on +44 (020) 7228 0017, alternatively you can contact us through info@hanne.co.uk or via our website www.hanne.co.uk, and one of our experienced housing lawyers will be in touch.

Ex-Wife refused permission to relocate children to Canada

On 18 May 2011 Judges in the Court of Appeal case of MK v CK allowed the father’s appeal to stop his ex wife from moving to Canada with their children. The Court of Appeal Judges found that the lower court had not balanced the pros and cons of the mother’s application to remove the children from the jurisdiction.

In the past ten years there has been a trend by the courts to allow an application by one parent to move abroad if they had well laid plans, genuine reasons and if forced to stay they would be unhappy and the children would suffer as a result. The Court in this case carefully considered all of the facts and placed strong emphasis on the fact that both parents shared the care of their children. The unanimous ruling of the three panel Court of Appeal stressed that the only principle of law is that the welfare of children is paramount. The court in weighing the balance between the detriment to the children if they remained and the detriment that would result from a diminished relationship with their father if they relocated ruled that it was in the children’s best interests to remain in the UK

MK V CK case facts

The mother is of Canadian origin and the father of Polish origin but spent his childhood in Canada. The parties, who are both bankers, married in London in 2004. They have two daughters aged 4 and 2. The parties divorced in 2010. The parties had a shared residence order, which provided that the practical care of the children was shared by both parents. The mother applied to relocate back to Canada following the divorce as she wanted to be nearer her parents for emotional and material support.

The Court referred to the leading authority of Payne v Payne. They noted that in that case the applicant mother was the primary carer for the children. In such circumstances the court can consider that the children are dependent on the primary carer’s stability and wellbeing.

However the approach in Payne should not be adopted in cases where the practical burden of care is shared between the parents.

How can Hanne & Co help you?

Hanne & Co are one of London’s leading family law firms. Our specialist family law department possesses a wealth of experience in complex relocation proceedings. Following the Court of Appeal ruling in MK v CK it is likely that parents will seek shared care arrangements when dealing with residence applications, particularly where there is an international element e.g. one parent has ties to another country other than England and Wales. As well advising you on these issues we can also advise on other areas of Family Law such as Financial Remedies, Cohabitation, Adoption and Public Law. 

Please feel free to enquire with one of our family law team on +44 (020) 7228 0017, alternatively you can contact us through info@hanne.co.uk or via our website www.hanne.co.uk, and one of our experienced family lawyers will be in touch.

About the firm
Hanne & Co is a leading South London firm based in Clapham Junction. Established in 1898 we have a long history and outstanding reputation. As well as services in Family we are experts in Property (residential and commercial), Private Client and Wills, Employment Law, Housing, Landlord and Tenant and Crime. We have a thriving practice with our staff dedicated and committed to providing a quality service at competitive rates.

For further information please contact us at +44 (020) 7228 0017, or contact us through info@hanne.co.uk. You can also find out more about us at our website www.hanne.co.uk or visit our wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Hanne_&_Co

Challenging the Validity of a Will

Challenging the validity of a will is often very complex and many clients seek straight forward legal advice on probate practice and procedure as well as the merits of their claim. A recent judgment handed down by the High Court has provided further guidance to those seeking to challenge the validity of a will.

Following a costly seven day trial, it was ruled that Helen Blofield, in her 80s, “knew what she was doing” when she disinherited her Grandaughter from her £150,000 estate in favour of Lionel Cranfield, her former neighbour. 

Instructions were taken for the will on the 31st October 2006 by a firm of solicitors on Mrs Blofields’ behalf. Days prior to this, on the 20th October 2006, Mrs Blofield had been seen by a different firm of solicitors, who had sufficient concerns regarding her mental capacity to refuse to proceed without positive medical evidence detailing her capacity to provide instructions. 

Medical evidence is often very important in determining an individual’s capacity to provide instructions to a solicitor. Mrs Blofield had asked to change her will leaving the entirety of her estate from being in favour of her Granddaughter, Leigh Cowderoy, to that of street paver, Lionel Cranfield.

Following Mrs Blofield’s death in October 2008, Ms Cowderoy, an airline executive, sought to challenge the validity of the will which had been amended by the second firm of solicitors visited by Mrs Blofield and argued that Mr Cranfield had coerced her Grandmother into changing the will.

At the time of Mrs Blofield’s death, Ms Cowderoy had worked for an airline company and rarely saw her Grandmother. Mister Justice Morgan concluded that Mrs Blofield’s decision to amend the will was influenced by her belief that if she did so, and told Mr Cranfield that she had done so, then he would continue to visit and care for her in the subsequent years. 

Mr Justice Morgan stated that “Mrs Blofield had good days and bad days.” On hearing evidence from both sets of probate solicitors and numerous other witnesses as to Mrs Blofield’s mental capacity on and around the time of making changes to her will, he ruled that her “condition did fluctuate principally as a result of the combined effect of her medication and the consumption of alcohol” and that the 20th October was “a bad day” and it may have been that there were doubts as to Mrs Blofield’s capacity on the particular day in question.

The case highlights the importance of timing. Whilst evidence showing that the testator lacked capacity around the time of making a will can throw doubt on its validity, the determining factors will always be capacity at the time of instruction and execution. Hanne & Co’s probate solicitors are experienced in advising and representing clients who seek to challenge the validity of a will and have a wealth of knowledge in representing clients seeking advice on making an Inheritance Act claim. We are able to offer appointments without delay at very competitive rates.

If you need any advice on wills, probate and trusts, or you would like to contest a will or make a claim if you feel you have not been fairly provided for then please contact us. 

To make an appointment with our wills department please call 020 7228 0017 or email info@hanne.co.uk

Is your Child's School on Strike?

It is highly likely that a large number of schools will be on strike on Thursday 30/6/11 and on subsequent days because of the dispute between the public service unions and the government over the proposed changes to pension rights.

What is the situation when you have to take time off work because your child cannot attend school? Generally speaking any time taken off work without the employer’s explicit permission would be a breach of contract and may lead to some form disciplinary action.

However, the last government’s introduction of “family friendly policies” at work means the situation is covered under section 57A Employment Rights Act 1996 which allows employees to take a reasonable amount of time to deal with unexpected disruption of childcare arrangements in particular during a period when a school would normally have responsibility for that child.

Unfortunately for employers any disruption caused by the employee’s absence is irrelevant in determining whether the employee’s circumstances trigger this right. The employee must inform the employer as soon as possible about the reason for the absence and how long they would expect a period of absence to last. The situation regarding the strikes this week is to some extent fluid, although parents should have been informed by now whether the school will be closed or not.

It should be stressed that any time off allowed by the employer does not have to be paid.

If any employer requires advice on how to deal with this situation or if any employee suffer a detriment because of taking time off then they should not hesitate to contact the employment department lawyers at Hanne & Co on 020 7228 0017 or by email to Harry Dronfield at harryd@hanne.co.uk or David Taylor at dxt@hanne.co.uk

Hanne & Co Solicitors Re-Launch

Hanne & Co celebrated its re-launch at a private function in the Slug and Lettuce in Clapham Junction on Tuesday 21st June 2011. Members of the judiciary, other legal professionals and most importantly local businesses and charities attended the event. Representatives from all our departments, Family Law, Conveyancing, Child Care Law, Wills Probate and Trusts, Criminal Law and Employment Law were there to promote the firm and catch up with old friends and related professionals.

The evening was a roaring success and a fantastic way for local businesses to celebrate the re-launch as well as network with each other. Hanne & Co, with the generosity of its guests, raised funds for their nominated Charity, Wandsworth Bereavement.

Despite the fact that we have been in the heart of Clapham Junction for decades, we are sometimes easy to miss. Whilst we are on the main junction, we occupy the upper floors of a property with no street presence so it was great to meet local business people and point out exactly where we are. Of course, we chose the Slug and Lettuce as the venue as we are directly opposite.

A lot has changed in the world since Hanne & Co opened its doors back in 1898. But there are two challenges which businesses faced back then which are just as relevant today; tough economic conditions, and uncertainty over changing employment legislation. With the coalition announcing a review of employment laws, Hanne and Co are offering a helping hand to local businesses as part of their re-launch celebration; a free employment law “health check” to all the businesses invited. Given the success of this promotion, Hanne & Co is extending the offer until the end of August 2011. Simply contact Harry Dronfield, who is a solicitor in the Employment Law department of Hanne & Co by e-mail harryd@hanne.co.uk for further information or to book an appointment.

A Safe Place for Your Will?

In the wills, probate and trusts department at Hanne & Co, we are enjoying the latest EastEnders story line as much as you. Janine’s granny dispatches Janine to granny’s chest of drawers for granny’s biscuit tin and treasured letters. Beneath them lies granny’s will. Janine glances at it long enough to see granny’s left everything to charity (don’t we wish we could read wills that fast?). Janine realises it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t get a bean and that she loves granny whom she’s been bad mouthing oh so recently. 

By dawn granny has died. The body is scarcely cold before Pat Butcher weighs in with a charge of murder. It may be that Janine needs a criminal solicitor and as you know, having won the Legal Aid Lifetime Achievement award, our criminal team are experts in their field.

But will there be any consequences to granny’s keeping her will in her chest of drawers? Why did she keep it where anyone could read it and where they could easily have torn it up after her death if they didn’t like what it said? Is the charity going to get the million or so granny is said to be worth? We await the unfolding of the plot with baited breath. In the interim, if you are in need of advice on wills, probate or trusts, Hanne & Co’s private client department are currently offering some very competitive rates. Please speak to staff at our office opposite Clapham Junction station.

Don’t store your will at home, at least not in your chest of drawers. It may get mislaid, overlooked or deliberately destroyed. Hanne & Co offer free storage of wills. Come to us and we’ll happily look after your will for you. Our experienced probate solicitors understand the importance of your last wishes. As founder members of Certainty, the National Will Register and Will search service, we are able to register the fact we hold your will here, helping to make it all the less likely your wishes are ignored after your death.

If you need any advice on wills, probate and trusts, or you would like to contest a will or make a claim if you feel you have not been fairly provided for then please contact us (this is known as an Inheritance Act Claim). We have a number of experienced probate solicitors ready to advise you on matters of any complexity. 

To make an appointment with our Wills department, please follow the directions to our office in Clapham Junction. Our office is very accessible via National Rail and bus routes running through Wandsworth, Battersea, Surbiton, Kingston and the surrounding boroughs of London.

Please contact us by email on info@hanne.co.uk or by calling 020 7228 0017.