PDA

View Full Version : Stupid judges strike again!


Espada III
11th Mar 2015, 15:40
BBC News - Dale Vince ex-wife wins divorce cash battle (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392)

20 years after their divorce a woman can claim more money from her ex. :ugh:

G-CPTN
11th Mar 2015, 15:44
AFAICT, the judges have just ruled that a claim is 'possible'.

The amount awarded (if any) remains to be determined.

It might turn out to be insufficient to cover her costs.

It is, indeed, an unusual case in that, when they were together they 'had nothing' and, it is only after their divorce that he has acquired his fortune (through his own determination - absolutely nothing at all to do with her 'support').

Espada III
11th Mar 2015, 15:46
But even 'possible' is stupid. The whole point of the clean break divorce we practice in the UK is that it is a "Clean Break".....

Lonewolf_50
11th Mar 2015, 15:48
This would appear to be evidence of a systemic gender discrimination against males.

maliyahsdad2
11th Mar 2015, 16:18
Correct me if I wrong. She has been on benefits for years following her divorce.
If she wins this case and a huge payout will the DWP be claiming back all of the handouts she has been paid?

No, this is the UK remember.
First she will take the DWP to court and lose.
Then she will take it to appeal and lose
Then she will take it to the European courts and win, costing the UK Taxpayer multiple millions in the meantime.

dazdaz1
11th Mar 2015, 16:22
This scenario starts with the first date, women are accessing us males as to possible breeding, taking in the need for our 'live' bodily fluids to fertilize their eggs. You may think we fall in love, in a way we do, but it's the temptation of copulation (you know what I mean) us men are seduced by discovering the naked temptations of the female form.

Throughout my life I've had a 'niggle' at the back of my mind as to the 'honey trap' that awaits us males that leads us into divorce and great financial hardships. My question is? Why do us guys get drawn into a financial black hole for lust?

May I add, I'm hetro, my thoughts, why buy a book when one can join a library.

charliegolf
11th Mar 2015, 16:40
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchingthesky View Post
Correct me if I wrong. She has been on benefits for years following her divorce.
If she wins this case and a huge payout will the DWP be claiming back all of the handouts she has been paid?

No, this is the UK remember.
First she will take the DWP to court and lose.
Then she will take it to appeal and lose
Then she will take it to the European courts and win, costing the UK Taxpayer multiple millions in the meantime.

Nobody will be taking anyone to court for benefit repayment. Why on earth would they. Now if she has a windfall and CONTINUES to claim. That's different.

CG

Stanwell
11th Mar 2015, 16:42
dazdaz,
I've given a bit of thought to that myself.
A wise man explained it to me thusly...

"A man's only got enough blood in his system to run either the brain or the penis - but not both." :E

charliegolf
11th Mar 2015, 16:42
This scenario starts with the first date, women are accessing us males as to possible breeding, taking in the need for our 'live' bodily fluids to fertilize their eggs. You may think we fall in love, in a way we do, but it's the temptation of copulation (you know what I mean) us men are seduced by discovering the naked temptations of the female form.

Throughout my life I've had a 'niggle' at the back of my mind as to the 'honey trap' that awaits us males that leads us into divorce and great financial hardships. My question is? Why do us guys get drawn into a financial black hole for lust?

May I add, I'm hetro, my thoughts, why buy a book when one can join a library.

Still single I take it?

CG

SpringHeeledJack
11th Mar 2015, 17:23
It's a strange way of looking at things, I wonder if the ex-wife would have tried this for a few thousand if the ex-husband had a normal average income ? She's either a 'special' type of character, or a pushy legal representative guided her into making this frankly ludicrous claim.


SHJ

londonblue
11th Mar 2015, 17:44
To me this is interesting because it wasn't all that long ago that, after a very big divorce settlement, a bloke took his ex-wife back to court claiming that because of the recession (that had just started), and its effect on the share price of his business he wasn't worth anywhere near as much as he had been. He further argued that he should be allowed to claim some of the settlement back from his ex wife.

This was thrown out because even a dramatic natural fluctuation of the share price wasn't enough to re-open the settlement.

He took a gamble by paying his ex wife in cash and property whilst retaining his business. He lost, at least in the short term. I'm sure if the share price goes up, he won't be offering to pay his ex wife more.

It seems that this new ruling may well change that.

Lonewolf_50
11th Mar 2015, 17:53
Is systemic bias (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/557946-stupid-judges-strike-again.html#post8897640) justified or not?
The year is 2015.

Dan Gerous
11th Mar 2015, 18:08
I caught this on tv this morning when the claimant and her lawyer were live on tv. The lawyer had a smirk on her face a mile wide, was struggling to answer questions, and when an attempt was made to get the claimant to speak, the lawyer moved closer to her and mumbled something to her, I assume telling her to say nothing.

Private jet
11th Mar 2015, 18:36
Call me sceptical if you like but I presume this judgement is now potentially opening up another fresh revenue stream for the legal profession?

G-CPTN
11th Mar 2015, 22:40
I believe that the crux of the matter in this case is that there was no financial settlement at the time of the divorce (as neither party had any assets).

Had there been a settlement, then the current case would not arise.

As suggested earlier, this is just permission to approach the family court to see if they will grant her anything.

Apparently, their went to live with the father and is now a rich adult - so there is no child maintenance question - just that she feels she should have a share of his wealth derived after they divorced.

I would suggest that the family court might award her a token sum for her distress - but is unlikely to grant her the £1.9 million that she is asking.

As I said - probably not enough to cover her legal expenses (though she might currently be on Legal Aid, being a person of no assets).

Even if she is on 'No win no fee' then if she wins she loses . . .

Don_Apron
11th Mar 2015, 22:53
The law is an ass and this ruling just gives the proof. Anyone with half a brain and still in touch with reality, would agree.

ETOPS
11th Mar 2015, 22:57
The lesson here is to have the "settlement" written into your decree by the court at the time of the divorce - the so-called "clean break".

This wasn't a feature of this particular case hence the ruling (correct in my mind) that she can take her case to court.

I reckon she will get around £500,000

Flying Lawyer
11th Mar 2015, 23:08
Supreme Court Judgment (https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0186_Judgment.pdf)

Press Summary issued by the Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0186_PressSummary.pdf)

Private jet
11th Mar 2015, 23:51
I thought the "beloved Margaret's" CSA was supposed to have sorted all this out. I guess you can't apply the "wisdom" & economics of the corner shop to everything eh? (in fact very little as time is now telling....)

jimtherev
12th Mar 2015, 00:19
Didn't I recently hear that the dreaded CSA had been abolixxed? Quite right too. Everyone I heard of whohad to deal with them complained that the process was long drawn out, badly administered, and never came up with the right answer.

Noah Zark.
12th Mar 2015, 01:54
Might it be that the ex-husband's legal team who handled his divorce from this gold digger might be liable to reimbursing the husband on the grounds that they failed to inform him of and take defensive measures against him being ripped off in the event of him becoming wealthy in future life?

Loose rivets
12th Mar 2015, 02:06
I think there was a child involved. She struggled to raise the child during the bleak period but then observed him becoming rich. I can only guess he rejected any call for help as a moral burden.

Romeo Oscar Golf
12th Mar 2015, 02:40
Thank you Tudor for your links. The law is really an ass and it seems a self perpetuating one. Yes I have an interest in this nonsense and I understand why so many guys just piss off and vanish. It's time to call a halt to this crap!:*

Flying Lawyer
12th Mar 2015, 02:56
ROG The law is really an ass

As can be seen from the links, the "stupid judges" (thread title) applied the law made by Parliament.


G-CPTN I believe that the crux of the matter in this case is that there was no financial settlement at the time of the divorce (as neither party had any assets).Correct.


Private jet I thought the "beloved Margaret's" CSA was supposed to have sorted all this out.
This case has nothing whatsoever to do with the CSA.

Romeo Oscar Golf
12th Mar 2015, 03:05
Ok so the law made by Parliament is an ass......enacted by the law mongers!
Do you not have any real life feelimgs ?

So Hitler says "kill the jews" Therefore we do because it's the government ruling.
I can't believe that there are not ways of discussing these issues.

Flying Lawyer
12th Mar 2015, 03:25
ROG

I was merely emphasising that it is the legislation which brought about this decision - because the OP and some others here appear to think that the Supreme Court judges simply went off on some frolic of their own.
Opinions will differ about whether the legislation should be changed/amended, but that is for MPs to decide.


Do you not have any real life feelimgs ?Yes, of course.

Romeo Oscar Golf
12th Mar 2015, 03:32
Thank you Tudor.
I'm rather upset by decisions regarding financial payments post divorce and apologise for my prickleness.

Stan Woolley
12th Mar 2015, 11:51
If it were me I'd give her enough money to make her life easier, he can afford it.

cockney steve
12th Mar 2015, 13:23
Thanks for the links, FL I read the second one, then went back to the first... by "23" I'm afraid I was losing the will to live...
My first reaction, was, having heard all the evidence, why did the Judge take so long to announce the ruling......reading that ruling gives some insight into the wider issues that had to be considered and deliberated on.

My snap judgement, was , they both walked away from their relationship and commitment , relying on the State to support them, their joint offspring and her previous one child and subsequent 2 others.

The latter, IMO, reflect no credit on her morals or financial probity. I am not suggesting she should have been celibate during those years, but to procreate irresponsibly and then retrospectively latch on to the only one of three different fathers, smacks of opportunism, rather than any sense of "justice."

It is the law that she has a right to take this Ex to Court. He has already paid a substantial sum for her legal costs....(talk about "bite the hand that feeds you") I would love to see a judgement in favour of their joint offspring, say £5000 a year each from the separation(the end of permanent cohabitation) to the age of majority or leaving the Mother's home.

The 2 who would appear to have been the result of casual sex between the couple, after the parting, the father should , again, pay from their birth to majority. If he was too irresponsible to "bag it" and she, too irresponsible (or devious) to use the pill or other contraception (NO?), bears an equal responsibility. Her track-record , again, undermines her cause.

Each of the children, £5000 per year of their dependency, plus interest (simple) at 5% would give each a goodly lump sum.
Her, (the mother) I would award a sum equal to the amount which has already been awarded (IE he has already paid restitution in full) Having apparently been feckless, vindictive and opportunistic, perhaps the judge should award the ir joint children a token sum each from her award, such that the only beneficiaries from this farce would be the children.

The lawyer involved on the wife's side, would maybe learn a lesson in the moral choice of which case to champion, the wife would learn that greed, jealousy, envy and spite are not profitable sentiments and the husband would learn that being selfish, smug and rich whilst ignoring moral obligations, will only line his solicitors' pockets.

As soon as his business proved successful, he should have waved the olive branch to her and made a full and final settlement....It may have hurt at the time, but it seems probable the joint legal-bill, which he is paying, will far exceed what he might have got away with.

Silly people, both of them.

Groundbased
12th Mar 2015, 13:51
To me the judges are not just applying the law, they are interpreting the law. The Family Court interpreted the law differently and threw the case out. This was an appeal against that decision.

Clearly there is latitude in the way this law can be interpreted, or two courts would not come to a different decision.

The drafting of legislation is something that, in my view, should result in something much less opaque than a lot of what seems to be on the statute book. Take this for example, from the press summary:

"Neither should an application be viewed as an “abuse of process” falling within Rule 4.4(1)(b) solely on the basis that it has no real prospect of success"

To me it seems that making claims with no real prospect of success should be an abuse of a process designed to ensure the court doesn't waste its time hearing spurious claims.

Why are the acceptable "abuses of process" not defined properly in the rules for the avoidance of doubt?

MagnusP
12th Mar 2015, 13:53
cockney steve, one judge is tasked with drafting the judgment which includes checking relevant statute and case law. His/her colleagues all then go through a process of revision/correction before agreeing the publication of the judgment. As they are often hearing other cases at the same time, it can take a while to complete the process.

VP959
12th Mar 2015, 13:54
I wonder if it made a few others stop and worry, though, as it did me. I divorced (amicably) around 30 years ago. As far as I can recall we just did the basics, and divorced (I didn't even use a solicitor). There were no children and as far as I know no form of financial agreement, as we were both in rented accommodation.

I have absolutely no idea how well my ex may have done, and suspect she has no idea about me, either. What if she's been on benefits for the past 30 years and now comes after half my pension?

dazdaz1
12th Mar 2015, 17:37
Charliegolf..."Still single I take it?"..... Yes, and loving it! Although I do have a casual relationship with a young lady who I'm helping/giving advice to be a model.

I'll never fall in a trap. In the words of Cliff "Son be a bachelor boy" no jives please, some lyrics of the song do make sense as to male vulnerability pertaing to 'getting ones leg over'