Amongst the measures included in The Children and Families Bill will be maternity leave that can be transferred from the mother to the father so that mothers can return to work more easily as well as allowing a couple more evenly to share the care of a new baby. Tying into this is the provision of flexible working to be available to those with parental responsibility for a child up to the age of 16.

The process of adopting children will be accelerated by giving priority to the speed at which suitable parents are found. The days of local authorities delaying to find the  elusive ‘perfect match’ will be put aside, as well as the old priority of matching the ethnicity of the children to their new families.

Care proceedings will now be given a 6 month timescale rather than letting them drag on to the clear detriment of the children at the heart of the traumatic process.

There are plans for Lawyers to be able to process uncontested divorces to accelerate the procedure which can suffer enormously from delays caused by the administration of the already stretched Courts Service.

Children’s contact with their fathers after divorce has also been given close attention by the Bill which promises to afford a greater level of protection to the principal that parents are equally important and should play an equal role in the lives of their children following separation. Fathers will in theory be more able to ensure that contact with their children post divorce is balanced rather than heavily tipped in the mother’s favour.

The Courts have for some years been focused on the child’s best interests as the utmost priority. It would seem then that this Bill adds little. In reality however it goes a long way to bolster the basic legal principles of the Family Legal System by ensuring that other fundamental family rights combine to afford wide ranging protection for the family, not just in the Family Courts when often it might be too late.

These proposals follow an investigation by the LSB which uncovered systemic problems with the services delivered by many different types of provider. They found consistent patterns of sloppiness, simple errors and poor communication. This often resulted in an unacceptable service. Too often consumers were subjected to unfair sales practices. There have also been well documented examples of fraud and deception. The Legal Services Board cause unregulated wills-writers to face overhaul therefore.

As a firm of solicitors, Sanders Witherspoon LLP are already regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and we welcome these proposed changes.  We understand that as many as 20% of wills contain mistakes and we very often are required to deal with the mistakes of others at the cost of the estate.

If you require advice in relation to making a will or the administration of an estate, please contact our solicitors Sarah Harris or Satwinder Sahota who will be pleased to assist you.

When a property is being purchased with the assistance of a mortgage, in the majority of cases the solicitor or conveyancer acting for the buyers will also act on behalf of the mortgage lender as that lender’s solicitor/conveyancer to ensure that the interests of the mortgage lender are properly protected.

This situation works well in most cases since the interests and requirements of the buyers and the mortgage lenders are similar. Having the same firm acting on behalf of the buyer and lender ensures that work is not duplicated and that the cost to the buyers is kept to a minimum. To this extent the arrangement reflects not only convenience on the part of the mortgage lender, but also a cost efficient solution.

The solicitors and conveyancers that the mortgage lenders approve and agree to have acting on their behalves is known as a Panel.  The majority of mortgage lenders have thousands of solicitors and conveyancers on their Panels, allowing buyers to have a wide choice of firms they can instruct to act for them in relation to their purchase, knowing that such firm can also act on behalf of the mortgage lender.  This large number of firms on Panels means that buyers have local Panel firms scattered all over the country.

HSBC Bank has recently decided to restrict its Panel to just 43 firms.  Although buyers are still free to instruct any firm of solicitors or conveyancers to act on their behalf, if they are obtaining mortgage finance from HSBC Bank this will mean that HSBC Bank will only instruct one of the 43 firms to act on its behalf.  The buyers will therefore be required to pay not only their own solicitors/conveyancers costs applicable to their purchase but also the costs of the firm instructed to act on behalf of HSBC Bank.

Since HSBC Bank has restricted its Panel membership a number of complaints have been made by people who are obtaining mortgage finance from HSBC.  One of the complaints made is that the introduction of a further solicitor or conveyancer into the transaction has caused extra costs to be charged since not only have the buyers had to pay the costs of the firm instructed by HSBC Bank but their own solicitors/conveyancers charges have been increased due to the additional work they have had to carry out in dealing with the requirements of the firm instructed by HSBC Bank.

Indeed in some cases it has been stated that the sellers’ solicitors or conveyancers have raised charges for dealing with requirements raised by the firm acting for HSBC Bank, where these are not standard procedure. The buyers have had to swallow these extra costs.

Additionally, people have complained that delays have occurred because of the further requirements of the firm acting on behalf of HSBC Bank and their involvement in the chain, in some cases putting the purchase of their property in jeopardy.

The Law Society of England and Wales has been lobbying MP’s about HSBC’s Panel restrictions and the issue is currently ongoing.

The then Labour Government decided that it would save Court time and the expense of all concerned if a statutory scheme was created enabling disputes between Landlords and Tenants to be resolved informally and for the deposits paid to be held in an “approved scheme” appropriately insured or managed by a third party. Unfortunately this transition was not smooth and a number of problems arose.

Landlords and Tenants need to be aware that under the provisions of The Localism Act 2011 which is due to come into force on the 6^th April 2012 that there will be material changes to both existing and all new Assured Shorthold Tenancies granted, where deposits are being taken by the Landlord.

Under the existing Law (further explained in the case of Universal Estates – v – Tiensia 2010) Landlords had 14 days in which to protect the deposit paid to them by their Tenants. In that case it was decided that if due to an administrative over-sight the Tenant’s deposit was not paid into a prescribed scheme, then a Landlord could always pay in late and comply with the Act without penalty.  If proceedings were taken by the Tenant then a penalty of three times the deposit’s value had to be paid to the Tenant, regardless of the degree of blame that could be attached to the Landlord.

Under the new proposals, the time for lodging monies in an approved scheme and giving notice under the Act has been extended from 14 to 30 days.  However, if the sums are not lodged within that period of time the Legislation appears to suggest that a Tenant can take their Landlord or Letting Agent to Court immediately after the expiry of the 30 day limit.

It is not all bad news for the Landlord as if they are found to be in breach of the Rules then the Court now has discretion as to the amount that can be awarded to the Tenant. It should be noted that the discretion is either to award an amount equal to the deposit or up to three times that amount, depending on the individual cases. It is conceivable that a repeat offending Landlord  may find themselves with a very large fine, compared to a Landlord who has (as is the legal position currently) simply forgotten to protect the deposit due to problems in the office.

Landlords need to be aware also that the sanctions are not limited to a penalty for failure to pay into an approved scheme. The Landlord may now find that he is unable to re-take possession of a property under the non-fault basis provided by service of a Notice under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

Currently a Landlord who fails to place a Tenant’s deposit in an approved scheme cannot recover possession under Section 21 of the Housing Act.  A number of cases have permitted a Landlord to proceed if, upon discovering his mistake, he complies with the requirements late but before he has served the Section 21 Notice.  A Landlord appears, once the new Legislation comes into force, to have lost this right and must now either repay the deposit in full or await the outcome of any decision the Court may make in relation to proceedings brought by the Tenant for non-protection of their deposit and will still be obliged to serve the prescribed information upon the Tenant.

It is important to note that Landlords have only 30 days to comply with the requirements of the new Legislation and obviously all Landlords and Agents are well advised to review all of their current matters to ensure that the appropriate Notices have already been given under the respective schemes, that all deposits are in an approved scheme and that they have evidence in that regard.

It is felt that the changes under The Localism Act will, in the main, benefit Tenants. Landlords will no longer be able to remedy the breach that they have. However, the original Legislation as enacted did appear to give an automatic right to a Tenant to claim a penalty of three times of the deposit paid and therefore the clarity given by the new Legislation does ensure that the intentions of those originally enacting the Legislation has been achieved.

If you are a Tenant it may be the time to take advice as to whether you can make a claim in relation to your Tenancy. If you are a Landlord you need to ensure that you have fully reviewed your obligations, that all your deposits that require protection in a scheme are protected immediately and that the prescribed information required under the current Legislation or the new modified Legislation is also served within the 30 day time limit. If the new Rules are not followed then it will affect the Landlord’s ability to serve a Notice under the Rules to recover possession.

Katie Price was yesterday granted her Quickie Divorce from her estranged Husband Alex Reid in the High Court. Or so you would be lead to believe by the Red Tops.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a Quickie Divorce. Sometimes divorces take a very long time because they are complicated and sometimes they go through as quickly as they can. But one thing is for sure, there is no such thing as a Celebrity Quickie version that we poor mortals have to struggle by with.

What simplified Press stories fail to explain is that a couple are only actually divorced when the Decree Absolute (aka Final Order) is pronounced by the Court. The stage described as sealing Miss Price’s Quickie Divorce from Mr Reid by the Press is simply the Decree Nisi stage.

The Decree Nisi is the point at which a Judge in the Divorce process states that the Petitioner is entitled to be divorced from the Respondent. Not that she is divorced. Her reasons for wanting to be divorced are sufficient and the legal rules in the process have been complied with.

At least 6 weeks has to pass from Decree Nisi before any application can be made by the Petitioner for Decree Absolute – formally to end the marriage. This final stage might be put off for very many reasons – agreeing financial divisions and arrangements for the children being the most important.

Until Decree Absolute is pronounced, we are sorry to say that celebrities have to rough it with the rest of us and accept that in very real terms they remain very married indeed.

The Celebrity Quickie Divorce is no speedier or diamond encrusted than any other divorce, so which ever way you look at it you can either have a Quickie Divorce or not, it depends on what you call it. “A rose by any other name…”

Mr Nicklinson, 57, suffered a stroke in 2005 whish has left his body paralysed but his mind as active and fit as ever.

Mr Nicklinson has won the right for the High Court to consider his case for ensuring that any doctor who assists his death will be able to use the defence of Necessity against any charge of Murder that the Crown Prosecution Service may pursue. Mr Nicklinson would be unable to end his own life unassisted. This would be ‘Assisted Dying’.

The defence of Necessity is an old one, but rarely used, as it is not clear whether it actually exists. It should be distinguished from Duress – a legal excuse – and seen rather as a justification of actions that are illegal. It has undergone close scrutiny in the past, most notably in the case of R v Dudley (1884) 14 QBD 273. Captain Dudley and the three other crew found themselves adrift in a small wooden life boat following the loss of their yacht, the Mignonette off the Cape of Good Hope.

After 20 days adrift it was agreed between the three men that the cabin boy should be killed and eaten to save the rest, unless a boat was encountered within a day. None of them had eaten or drunk for more than 5 days. They had survived on two tins of turnips and their own urine. They did not encounter a boat and Richard Parker the cabin boy was killed with the Captain’s pen knife.

The survivors were rescued and charged and tried for Murder. Dudley pleaded Necessity but the three were convicted, originally to death but later to 6 months imprisonment.

In the 20th Century, Lord Denning Master of the Rolls clarified that Necessity might be considered more usefully as a practice in exercising discretion in prosecution or sentencing. Necessity has not been completely blocked as a defence in all circumstances however. Hence Mr Nicklinson’s fight.

Upon receiving news this week that the Courts will hear his case, Mr Nicklinson made this statement:

“I’m delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today.

“It’s no longer acceptable for 21st Century medicine to be governed by 20th Century attitudes to death.“

Sanders Witherspoon will be eagerly following the progress of the case which may either redefine Murder, the defence of Necessity and the Law or push Parliament into Law changing altogether.

Since George Osborne announced last year that he was increasing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one year to two years, we have all been waiting for news as to the way in which this will be implemented. The changes are now out and the date of the 6th April 2012 has been set.

It is estimated that three million people’s employment rights will be affected by this change in Employment Law. Employees and Employers should make sure that they are fully familiar with these new rules.

The changes will not (it is anticipated) affect the rights that have already been acquired by Employees and they will only affect those whose Contracts begin on or after the 6th April 2012.

The Rules are complicated, however. If you have a query then you are well advised to check up to see how these changes may affect you as soon as possible.

Many Employers will need to revisit and/or completely review the procedures that they have in their Contracts and disciplinary procedures. Many of these documents will have relied upon and referred to the former one-year qualification period in their Terms.

Existing and prospective employees as well as employers will have questions, to which the answers will be specific to their circumstances. These may affect redundancy payments, redundancy terms, unfair dismissal claims, the effect of the terms of anticipated Compromise Agreements, issues relating to Discrimination, Contracts of Employment and Employment terms generally.

Sanders Witherspoon LLP has a dedicated department dealing with employment questions and should you wish to come for one of our standard fixed fee interviews this can be arranged by contacting one of our Employment Solicitors -Mark HarrisorAnnie Tappenden. They will be able to answer your questions as to the effect of the changes generally and how those changes may affect you or your business in the future.

The complainant alleged to the police that she was in fear of him and there were previous allegations of theft made against him which were not continued with.

Our client had much to lose as he was a professional man of previous good character who vehemently denied the offences and protested his innocence. He appeared at Court when the Prosecution sought to change the dates of the charges as they had charged him with the wrong offences.

This was the subject of legal argument which caused the proceedings to be delayed. The case lasted over two years and we made investigations along with private investigators and defence witnesses. A number of witnesses were interviewed and statements taken to support our client.  They established that the complainant had sought to pervert the course of justice by making up the charges and concocting evidence of injuries. She had also blackmailed our client demanding money to drop the case against him.

The case ended up at trial and we presented an argument that the case should be stayed as an abuse of process. It came to light that there was evidence that should have been disclosed to the Defence which had not.  At the time the complainant said she was being threatened by the defendant, she had left telephone messages on his answer machine expressing her fondness and love of him and intimate details of their relationship which meant that she could not possibly have been in fear of him at the time.

The Prosecution decided not to contest the abuse of process argument and the case was stopped. Our client was indeed a very happy man but had to suffer a long ordeal of the Court proceedings at the Magistrates Court.

Our client was convicted at the Magistrates Court. This was after the Police identified our client in an identification parade. He had penalty points imposed on his licence along with a fine.

He sought our assistance after being unhappy with the way he was represented by his previous Solicitors.

Sanders Witherspoon’s Motoring Law department immediately identified that this was a case where the assistance of a handwriting expert would be crucial.  We obtained an expert’s report in relation to the handwriting on the Police ticket.  The expert’s opinion was categorical in that it could not have been the defendant that signed the ticket.  This opinion was submitted to the prosecution and the Court.

The prosecution accepted the evidence submitted on our client’s behalf and did not contest the appeal lodged by him. Our client’s conviction was quashed, his points lifted and the fine cancelled.

Lawyers from various practice disciplines will attend in order to discuss a career in Law with pupils, offering them a deep insight into the path from academia to practice, working in a busy South-East firm, representing clients for serious criminal offences in the Crown Court and Appeal Courts to assisting clients in the most stressful personal stages of their lives with tact and care.

Whether pupils want to discuss the different routes to practice, the daily work of Solicitors and Barristers or simply ask a few questions, we will be glad to talk.

Sanders Witherspoon has been established since 1953. For almost 60 years we have been an integral part of the local community. We want to ensure that this extends beyond our clients, offering young Brentwoods the opportunity to explore a career in Law, in all the forms that can take.

We look forward to meeting the pupils as well as discussing work experience placements with us, across our practice areas or in any specific fields that are of interest.

Further details of Brentwood School Careers Convention 2012 are available here http://www.brentwoodschool.co.uk/senior-school/calendar-3#/mode-notify/event-6379/rpt-1331143200.