The Law Commission says that Wills need to be brought into the 21st century. In many ways, the urgency makes sense. For at least a decade now most of us have been using digital technology to help us negotiate our banking, shopping, working lives, dating, and family lives, – the list could go – but one area in which we are yet to fully embrace the digital, remains Wills, where we are still doing things in largely the same way our Victorian forbears did.
But, before we throw out the baby with the bathwater, not everything that is old is out-dated, so the question has to be, is our current Wills system fit for purpose in the year 2017 and for the foreseeable beyond? Does it do enough to protect vulnerable members of society; does it provide fairness, cost effectiveness, efficiency, reliability and accessibility?
A woman has been granted permission to appeal the ruling of a case that the treasurer of Resolution has called "the most significant divorce case of the century so far". Here we take a look at the development of Owens v Owens, before it reaches the Supreme Court.
News that the Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in Mills v Mills provides a perfect opportunity to review the facts and developments of the case to this point.
An undertaking is a promise to the Court that you will, or will not, do something. Undertakings are useful to use when the Court cannot order that you take a certain action. For example, the Court cannot order the mortgage company to release your Husband or Wife from the mortgage. You can give a promise to do everything you can to release the other party from the mortgage and, until recently, it was thought that this was a pretty safe way of ensuring that the Wife could stay in the property, paying the mortgage, and the Husband would be discharged from those obligations. This is especially important if being named on one mortgage will stop him being named on another and buying his own property in the future.
It is an unavoidable truth that despite many years of lobbying, political discourse and, of course, limited but important legislative action, women still do not enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace.
This is as true in the law as it is in any other profession, if not more so. Making a successful career as a lawyer or barrister is difficult enough, but combining it with life as a mother is especially problematic. In the vast majority of cases, women who combine a profession in the law with motherhood, must find a way to successfully marry the unpredictable nature of legal work and all its travel, urgencies, emergencies and considerable pressures with the inherently demanding responsibilities of looking after children.
This is just one, but nonetheless, important reason why the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service proposal to trial early and late opening courts should be resisted.