The Smart Divorce Podcast

A Week in the Life of a Family Solicitor

• Tamsin Caine • Season 9 • Episode 3

Share episode

Send us a text

In this week’s episode Tamsin speaks to head of family Colin Davies of Kuits Solicitors to find out about the work he undertakes on behalf of his clients when they are not in front of him.

Colin Davies

Colin has specialised in family law for over 25 years, dealing with all aspects of relationship breakdown for both married and unmarried couples.

He has acted in numerous high-value cases, many of which have involved complex business and trust assets, often with an international element. Colin commonly represents business people and professionals from various walks of life.

Colin has significant expertise in pre- and post-nuptial agreements and the way in which they can be used to protect family and business interests.

Website: https://www.kuits.com/meet-the-team/colin-davies/
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/colin-davies-/
===
Tamsin is a Chartered Financial Planner with over 20 years experience. She works with couples and individuals who are at the end of a relationship and want agree how to divide their assets FAIRLY without a fight.

You can contact Tamsin at tamsin@smartdivorce.co.uk or arrange a free initial meeting using https://bit.ly/SmDiv15min. She is also part of the team running Facebook group Separation, Divorce and Dissolution UK

Tamsin Caine MSc., FPFS
Chartered Financial Planner
Smart Divorce Ltd
https://smartdivorce.co.uk

P.S. I am the co-author of “My Divorce Handbook – It’s What You Do Next That Counts”, written by divorce specialists and lawyers writing about their area of expertise to help walk you through the divorce process. You can buy it here https://yourdivorcehandbook.co.uk/buy-the-book/

To learn more about our podcast sponsor Ampla Finance – access their product guide here: https://bit.ly/3Ieqmuc
Or complete enquiry form https://bit.ly/3W4J7pz and one of the team will be in touch.


Support the show

Tamsin Caine:

Hello and welcome to the Smart Divorce Podcast. This is series nine and in this series we're going to explore what makes up the working week of various different professionals who work in the divorce world. You'll start to understand what they do, both during the time that you see them, how they prepare for meetings, and what work goes into the work of a divorce professional outside of the time that you spend with them. I'm really looking forward to some amazing clients in this series. We talked to a barrister, family solicitor, financial planner, divorce coach and really hoping that you're going to enjoy it and get a lot from it as well. Hello and welcome to today's episode of the Smart Divorce Podcast. I'm very happy to be joined today by Colin Davies from Kuits Solicitors in Manchester, and we're going to talk all about what Colin does with his working week. I should be specific about that bit. Thank you very much for agreeing to join me, colin. How are you?

Colin Davies:

Yes, very well, thank you, happy to be here.

Tamsin Caine:

Do you want to give us a proper and fuller introduction to you and how you've come to be at Kites and what your role involves?

Colin Davies:

I'm head of the family team here at Kites. I've been here for about five years, having spent the previous 20-odd years heading up a team at another firm. We are a small but perfectly formed team, currently of four in the office. We have one of our team away on maternity leave. So the sort of work we do covers all aspects of relationship breakdown for married and unmarried couples. So it'll be divorce and the financial matters that arise from that. It'll be children issues both for married and unmarried couples. In the case of unmarried couples, we'll deal with property disputes for them. So who gets what out of the house, and so on. We do a lot of work in relation to wealth protection in conjunction with our tax team. So that involves pre and post-nuptial agreements sometimes cohabitation agreements, but mainly nuptial agreements and that covers about everything that we do.

Tamsin Caine:

That's it. That's a big lot of work. It is a big lot of work, so we're going to focus today mainly on relationship breakdown rather than the nuptial agreements if anybody is interested in that side of things.

Tamsin Caine:

There are podcasts that we've done that you can look back on and get more information on those, and I'm sure we'll cover them again in the future because they come up more and more these days. But what I want to start with is finding out a bit about what, first of all, when a client should first come and see you, if it looks as though their relationship's breaking down, and what they can expect when they contact you. What's the kind of process that you go through?

Colin Davies:

Well, commonly, our clients are referred to us by other teams within the business and sometimes externally, from professional contacts and what have you? Those that approaches direct are often at a point where they're not entirely sure whether they want to separate or divorce, and they're just getting some information about what the situation would hold for them should they make that decision. More commonly, though, we are already dealing with an individual who has made the decision to separate, and, whilst wanting to understand what that involves for the future for them, they're also wanting to get the process underway. So our first meeting commonly will involve information gathering, really, about the couple, the finances, their children, and just getting a feel for what the present situation is, and then that will guide us in our thinking and our initial advice about where we would be heading as part of the process, where we would be heading as part of the process. After that, it's commonly a bit of thinking time for the client, potentially, or if they're ready to go and get us underway straight away, then we'll obviously get the terms of engagement and the advice letter out, and then after that it's a case of getting in contact with the other party and, if he or she has solicitors, making contact with them and then getting the ball rolling. Really, as far as the financial side of things is concerned, that would usually involve the obtaining of financial information documentation so it's a disclosure process and that would involve us giving our client basically a shopping list of information and documentation that we would need with a view to exchanging similar information and documentation with the other party's solicitors. At that point we'll go through the documentation with our client that we've received from the other party and see whether there's anything there that we think might be missing or needs further investigation, and then we may raise some informal questions with the other party's solicitors. And then we're raise some informal questions with the other party's solicitors and then we were probably at that point and it may take some time to get to that point in a position to start thinking about putting forward proposals for settlement.

Colin Davies:

Along the way, we may have to think about getting experts reports and they could be pension reports or they could be business valuations or property valuations and at the point at which we have all of the relevant information and documentation, we'll then sit down with the client with a view to drafting proposals for settlement. Now the client will be involved in all of that process up to the preparation of the settlement proposals, but not on a frequent basis, or, you know, we're not in contact with them every day. We might be, but more usually not, and we'll be doing a lot of work in the background to pull things together. We'll be liaising with the other party's solicitors, we'll be liaising potentially with experts, identifying relevant experts and then crafting letters of instruction, jointly or separately with the other parties or separately from the other party's solicitors, and all of that actually takes quite a bit of time and will be going on in the background, so that the points at which we would touch base with the client would be to bring them up to date about where the process is at the moment in time. And then, once we've got all of that information and documentation together, we'll have a proper sit-down meeting and go through then everything with the future setting out proposals.

Colin Davies:

Now, the proposal letter is actually a very important document and does take a lot of time to put together. What we have to think about there is the law as it applies generally, but more in particular to this particular client and his or her set of circumstances, and because these proposal letters are usually put before the judge in the event of financial remedy proceedings. They are usually very detailed. They'll set out the relationship history of the couple. They'll set out the financial history of the couple. They will refer to the relevant case law authorities in relation to our arguments about whether it's a needs case or a sharing case or a combination of the two. It will reference the Section 25 criteria from the National Causes Act and will set out whether it's a case for a departure from the 50-50 starting point and then set out the proposals referencing all of those matters. Now that proposal letter can take several hours to put together and will commonly run to several pages and the client will see all of that going on. They'll just see the end product and there'll be a conversation about getting their feedback into the detail or where we're heading with our thinking or the proposals, and we'll agree then that proposal letter, obviously before it goes out and away it goes. Then there'll be a response, usually to that proposal letter, without the issue of proceedings at this stage, and then there'll be a further conversation about how we would apply the law in reference to counter proposals and so on and then commonly before we have the meeting with the client about counter proposals'll have had a think about that. So when we have the meeting we're then ready and armed with our thinking and our suggestions about how we might we might approach all of that, assuming all of that process is successful.

Colin Davies:

Then there's the drafting of the financial consent order and alongside that is the financial summary form that the court requires for the judge to consider whether the proposals that are being made are reasonable or not. And the wording of the consent order is very important as well to make sure that it is implementing or putting into place that the couple agree, and that itself can take some time to draft, as does the financial summary form. Now the client on the financial summary form will see all the information that they have given us and sometimes perhaps might wonder why it's taken so long to put all of that into. You know the court form, but there are sections within that court form which would require some narrative input on occasions about why we think this is appropriate in the particular circumstances. It might be slightly on the edges of the discretionary boundaries that the court might work within, and we'd give an explanation as to that. So there's a bit of thinking work that goes into that as well. So assuming all of that works, then we'll get our consent order and then it's a case of implementation. If all of that is unsuccessful, then court proceedings are needed. Then obviously there are processes there to go through and, having issued the financial application, we then have to complete the court standard disclosure form. For me Now, excuse me, the first half of that form is relatively straightforward in that it contains basic information about the names, ages, dates of birth when the couple got married, when they separated, the names, dates of birth of the children if they are minors, or just the fact that there are adult children if they are not, the property address, its valuation, where the individual works, what his or her income is, and so on and so on.

Colin Davies:

There will be documents confirming all of that exhibited to the back of the form E. But the second half of the form E contains the sections in which we'd be making our legal arguments to a greater or lesser extent. So there'll be sections which cover, for example, contribution that have been made by the individuals to the financial assets of the marriage, and we could be saying in there that there's been contributions from outside the marriage inheritance or premarital assets which form part of the pot that we're discussing that should be dealt with in a particular way. There's a section there to deal with whether there are issues of the conduct of the other party which should be taken into account. That's only taken into account very rarely but nonetheless that's the place in the for me where you would make the point that this is something the court used to take into account. There's another section to deal with the standard of living of the couple, inheritance prospects and things like that. So within that part of the form you'd identify the sorts of things that you're going to raise as arguments later and we need to make sure that the wording of those sections properly reflect the arguments that we're going to raise later.

Colin Davies:

So again, that part of the form, more than the other part of the form, really needs the input and the time to go into it. And again the client won't see that until we've presented it to them for their input or approval. So those forms will be exchanged and there's then a formal questionnaire opportunity and there's then a formal questionnaire opportunity and that questionnaire would normally come from examination of the other parties for me. So there may be things that they say about contribution that we want to raise with them for more information or clarification. We may want to just tease an answer from them that in fact they're talking nonsense, but that's a separate sort of part of that process Most of the questionnaire really derives from it, can derive from valuation issues, but most of it derives from the documents that are exhibited for me.

Colin Davies:

So they'll be the bank statements, they'll be the pension statements, they'll be. They may be the valuations, pension statements, there may be the valuations. And again, because we want to understand more about the other party's financial circumstances that our client doesn't necessarily understand, we need to word that document in a particular way and it has to be relevant to the issues that we're dealing with. There's a practice direction which says that the questionnaire should be no more than four pages long, for example. So we have to work in a way to make sure that we're asking relevant and pertinent questions within that questionnaire. In some cases, where it's a complex matter, the court will accept a longer questionnaire. But generally speaking, we try to get the points that we want to get across, the inquiries we want to make, within that four-page document.

Colin Davies:

So we file and serve our questionnaire. The other side will do likewise. We'll have a look at their questionnaire and see what we think about that, whether we would object to what we need to understand to or gain more information about to reply. And then there's the first appointment hearing and at that hearing the judge will decide which of our questions he or she thinks need to be answered. They'll do that by reference to submissions that will be made on the part of each client and also reference to other documents that the court requires in advance of the first appointment, which is a detailed financial summary spreadsheet into which both sides will input, and there's also a case summary document into which both sides will input. And there's also a case summary document into which both sides will input. And that document again requires some thinking to make sure it all flows from everything that we're saying in our form and our questionnaire, and the court can see what our case is and where it is heading and what we want and why. And the judge at that hearing will timetable away he will timetable the date for replying to that questionnaire, any other information that he thinks is relevant, and then we'll list it for financial dispute resolution hearing, which is basically the dry run of each of the couple's case on submissions, with the judge then giving an indication about what he or she would do in the event of a fully contested final hearing, the couple then using that indication to take forward their negotiations and discussions on the day, in the hopes that there would be a concluded agreement then which would involve the drafting of the consent order, which would involve some more thinking work down the line.

Colin Davies:

But of course there's thinking work involved in the preparations for the financial dispute resolution hearing and usually we would use counsel to do that. So we have to make sure that barrister is fully up to speed with everything that's going on. That barrister may have been engaged prior to the FDR anyway to have a conference with the client. So there's preparation work involved in all of that.

Colin Davies:

And in advance of the FDR hearing there will have been the experts' reports that have been ordered or requested.

Colin Davies:

So they will be pension experts, they will be forensic accountants dealing with businesses, shareholder valuations and so on, and those letters of instruction themselves are detailed and run to many pages and they need proper consideration in terms of input. The reports themselves, when they are received, are detailed and run through many pages and they will then involve detailed consideration by us and by council, which will then feed into our further thinking and will feed into the open proposal letters that are put before the court in advance of the hearings. So there's an awful lot of background work that goes on to put the client's case at its best, some of which will involve direct input from the client, some of which won't. But the client will be involved along the way, but not on a day-to-day basis in the drafting and the preparation of the letters of instruction, for example, the initial drafting of the questionnaires, the initial drafting of the case summary and the financial schedules. So yeah, there's an awful lot going on in the background that nobody sees.

Tamsin Caine:

Absolutely Crikey Right, um, so yeah, there's there's an awful lot goes on in the background that nobody sees. Absolutely crikey right. I've got lots of questions for you. Oh no, have you gone? And I'm trying to keep them all in my head because there is so much to to unpacking all that. Right, I'm going to start off by asking you some questions about some technical terms that you use that are just so that we can understand them. So section 25, talk to me about section 25.

Colin Davies:

So section 25 is a list of criteria that the court uses to decide what would be fair and just in terms of the financial arrangements for this particular couple. So they include, for example, the age of each of the parties, the length of their relationship. Now that includes premarital cohabitation leading seamlessly into marriage. So we could have been married for 10 years but lived together for five years before that. So the court regards that as a 15-year relationship. For the purposes of the discussions and its thinking. It looks at the contributions that have been made by each of the couple along the way. So that could be their earnings. It could be any assets that have been brought into the marriage. We talked briefly about inheritances before. If they were very early in the marriage and it's a long marriage the distance between its receipt and now the point at which we are having the conversation means that there's less likelihood that that would be completely excluded. The same would apply to premarital assets. If it's a short marriage, they will be less likely to be taken into account than it would be if it was a longer marriage.

Colin Davies:

It looks at things like the standard of living enjoyed by the couple. So in cases where there are significant assets and resources, then there'll be an element of looking to maintain the standard of living. There'll be an element of looking to maintain a standard of living. If there aren't, then the court would look more at the needs of the couple rather than the standard of living that they had enjoyed. And the most significant one, where there are dependent children, is the fact that there are dependent children.

Colin Davies:

They are the most important people in the conversation and in the judges' thinking. So those are the Section 25 criteria that the court looks at and the starting point for capital division now is a 50-50 split of all capital, in whosever name and whatever form and wherever it may be situated, Excuse me. And the court then applies that Section 25 criteria to decide whether there should be a departure from that starting point. So it looks at each in each individual uh point. Now in some cases I think I mentioned that that we're required to prepare declarative statement setting out what each of the couple's case is by direct reference to that Section 25 criteria, and commonly that statement will expand on the background, both personal and financial relationship history, and then reference specifically each and every criteria and explain why it doesn't apply or it does apply and why we think, by reference to this couple's financial circumstances and the case law, this should apply in this particular case.

Tamsin Caine:

So, if we're assuming that we've not got as far as the court, yes, trying to do things like the first half of yes of your end, of your description. How do how? Just because you're explaining in in the documentation and in the narrative about how a judge would look at each of the. Section 25s. What about if there's not a judge? If we're negotiating between the two parties, what happens then?

Colin Davies:

We will reference, indirectly probably, the Section 25 criteria within a proposal letter or negotiations. We will commonly say, for example, this is a needs case, this is not a needs case, this is a sharing case. Or we commonly say this is a needs case and therefore that overrides everything else. Or we would say clearly this isn't a spousal maintenance case. Or clearly it's not a pensions case. So that's an indirect reference to the criteria that we're talking about.

Colin Davies:

We do it in that way because if we're dealing with solicitors on the other side, it's taken as read that this is the background within which we are working to produce our proposals. So we don't need to specifically say section 25a says section 25b says we would normally say clearly it's not a needs case. Or clearly it is a needs case for reasons which are obvious to everybody. Uh well, they should be, but perhaps not. Um, yes, but but yeah, the, the sort of the earlier part of the, the proposal letter, will be setting out the sort of you know, the reasoning, the thinking and the sort of case law that we might apply to the particular set of circumstances, and then we'd summarise, as I say, the sort of criteria that we would be referencing within then the proposals that would follow.

Tamsin Caine:

OK, so you mentioned case law just then. So I, looking at the kind of work that you do, that that your clients don't necessarily see how important is case law in in actually negotiating a financial settlement for clients or children's settlement.

Colin Davies:

Well, it can be very important. I mean, there are cases which cover pretty well all of the Section 25 criteria that we talk about. I think that the way we view case law generally and sort of keeping up to date with changes in the law is this that I think you know clients are entitled to expect that when they come to see us we know what we're talking about and you know they are not charged for the time that we spend keeping up to date with the law, using case law. Within our negotiations and discussions again, commonly, because we're dealing with the same sort of thing most of the time with other lawyers who are dealing with the same sort of thing most of the time, you know, we don't always give the name of the case that we're referring to because, again, they know what what we're talking about and they can explain to their.

Colin Davies:

Then we will reference the specific case law and we will pick from that specific case paragraphs of the judge's judgment that we were wanting to refer to. I can remember a case recently, recently, where we did just that, recently where we did just that when we were talking about pension issues and also the fact that the husband had been convicted of offences for which he was imprisoned and we were referencing certain authorities which were relevant to those facts, where he was saying, well, I'm entitled to X or Y or Z, and we're saying, well, you can't rely on the fact that you have you have no resources at the moment as against our resources post separation, because all of that is your fault, and we then sort of pick out the authorities that assist in that, so that we're almost sort of not reminded, or perhaps we are reminding the other side specifically that this is what we're going to refer the judge to so that they can have a proper conversation with their clients about where we are coming from or why.

Tamsin Caine:

Yeah, that makes sense about where we are coming from or why. Yeah, that makes sense. So this brings me quite nicely onto the question of what am I entitled to, which is something that I'm asked every day. I'm sure it's something that you're asked every day at the beginning of the process. You know we've got xyz. What am I entitled to? And and I assume you're going to give me the normal solicit transfer, which is it depends, correct? Um, I get the feeling and from my experience of working in this area, it seems to be the case that there's not a specific entitlement and that negotiations may end up with a settlement that's fair and reasonable, within a kind of span.

Tamsin Caine:

Is that fair to say.

Colin Davies:

Yes, kind of span. Is that fair to say? Yes, I mean the financial remedy process is. Outcomes are discretionary and that discretion forms a very wide band. We as lawyers tend to know when someone is talking outside the grey and in the black or in the white. But everything else should be in the grey and if the judge thinks that, for example, a consent order which is being proposed is on the edges or outside the norm, then he or she will often ask for more information about why we think this is reasonable.

Colin Davies:

But yes, what you're entitled to does depend on the particular circumstances of your particular case and, as I mentioned before, the starting point for capital division is a 50-50 split and then we use that various criteria to decide whether 50-50 is the correct outcome or it should be different from 50-50. Be different from 50-50. If, for example, the asset base is such that the needs of a party who has children who live with that party can only be met by an unequal division of the capital, then that is exactly what will happen. In cases where there are more than sufficient resources to house both of the couple and the children, then 50-50 might be the correct answer. It might not If the wealth of the couple has been derived from some sort of inheritances along the way or family money, for want of a better phrase then there'll be an argument for saying that there shouldn't be a 50-50 split of that.

Colin Davies:

There may be some sharing to reflect standard of living, for example. Then the reasonable needs of the individuals in those circumstances may well be higher than they might otherwise be, but for the standard of living that they have enjoyed on the back of family wealth, for example. But yes, each case is decided or negotiated on in relation to its particular set of circumstances. There will be common themes or threads that we use in our thinking and our discussions and they will justify arguments in a particular direction. But yes, each case really depends on its own circumstance.

Tamsin Caine:

Yeah, there you go. No, that was that was. That was great and and I really hope that helps to answer the questions of some of our listeners, because it's it's a tricky, it's a tricky thing to get your head around that there isn't, there isn't an answer. You know a kind of one number answer. This is what, yes, this is what you're entitled to. Um, I'm interested in the um initial proposal. I know you, you said you, you get the information all together and you'll go through mounds.

Tamsin Caine:

I mean documentation, that yes, yeah can be, you know, hundreds and hundreds of pages of pages long. Um, when we look at disclosure and you'll obviously need to go through all that documentation and get an idea of of the proposal, how, how do you does the client assess whether the proposal that you're suggesting they put on the table, other than, obviously, your professional experience? How do they assess whether that that is appropriate for them?

Colin Davies:

moving forward, part of the process is to understand in the first place really what they would ideally want to see as an outcome and what their future might look like. We give advice within the sort of you know the boundaries of the grey that a court would work within, and ideally we try to get them to a point where the proposal works for them and is within the sort of range that a court would work with. Sometimes the other clients say no, I want more than that and I must have more than that, and we say well, say well, yes, you can ask for that, but it's unlikely that you're going to get that. No, I insist, okay, fine. Well, we've given you certain advice. You know we will work with your instructions, but you know be aware that the alcohol is unlikely to be what you want it to be.

Colin Davies:

Sometimes it's helpful to get the advice of someone outside, such as yourself, who can explain to clients that, yes, there is a way forward and, financially speaking, this is how all of that can look and how it can all be achieved. And that can feed into to what we do often. And then, uh, the client has a better understanding and feel for for how things might work for him or her at the end of the process. So there is some element of outside assistance in that sort of conversation. By and large, clients do understand where we are coming from and why we do take on board what they want and why they want it, and, by and large, clients take on board the advice that we are giving as well. And it's a joint effort ultimately to get to a point which works.

Colin Davies:

Often we get to the point where you'll have experience of it as well where we put forward position A, the other side puts forward position B, and then there's maneuvering within the difference between us and everybody has, I think, in their own mind what their bottom line is. Clients might not tell us in the first place what that bottom line is, um, so they have their own comfort zone, either that we don't know about or that we do know about um, and it's a case of just trying trying to get through, get the client through the processes really as quickly, as quietly as possible were possible. But yeah, I think it's a joint conversation really about whether or how we get to the point where right. This, I think, is workable from a legal point of view. This is workable from your personal and financial point of view. Let's do that.

Tamsin Caine:

Yeah, that makes absolute sense In terms of this is going to be a how long is a piece of string question. But if everybody provides the information nicely, everybody behaves themselves and everybody negotiates nicely, what sort of timescale would you be talking about for that? And, conversely, if everybody's being a pain in the neck and we end up with the court proceedings and we go all the way through to a final hearing and I know there are delays in the courts at the minute but what sort of timeframe would you potentially be expected if you needed to go all the way through to the final hearing?

Colin Davies:

Right. Well, we would hope that if everybody is working together as quickly as they possibly can, that we'd be in a position to get everything wrapped up within six months. The court can't make the financial consent order until the conditional order of divorce is in place, and that takes six months anyway. But we can have got the negotiations and discussions concluded. We can get the consent order paperwork drafted and ready to lodge with the court at the conditional order date. So, assuming that everything is relatively straightforward, everybody's willing to work together, even if we need valuation reports, you would hope that it could all be finalised in terms of a concluded agreement, albeit not necessarily yet signed off by the court, within, say, six months.

Colin Davies:

If people are being difficult from start to finish, then it can take many years. If we have attempted negotiations and they are unsuccessful and we start proceeding, say, three months down the line, the courts at the moment have terrible delays in listing anything for first appointment or financial dispute resolution hearing, final hearings. They really depend on time estimates. So commonly at least a day, often two or three, you're easily talking day, often two or three, you're easily talking two years or more down the line. One solution which is often discussed where there are the resources of the couple to do so is to think about arbitration or private financial dispute resolution hearings, because the couple then have control over the timetable and they're not at the behest of the judge's diaries. So we can bring that process to an earlier conclusion than sticking strictly with the core process. But that option isn't available to everybody because the financial resources don't allow it.

Tamsin Caine:

Yeah, absolutely. That question about if one party is being difficult is a question that comes up quite a lot is a question that comes up quite a lot. So you may have one party who has got all their disclosure to their solicitor, who's provided all the information who's for me, is drafted and ready to go, and either the other party is not responding or is slow to respond or isn't providing disclosure to their solicitors. How long and I know this will differ from solicitor to solicitor, but how long would you expect to allow the other side to delay, or the spouse to delay, before taking action?

Colin Davies:

We would know, really within three months, whether we were going to get the cooperation that we needed, and we would then get the formal process underway. Yeah, so that's the sort of timescale that we would ordinarily work to.

Colin Davies:

If there were genuine reasons that we, if we believed the reasons that were being put forward as for delays as being genuine, then we would work with that. But there'll be a point in time where we just think enough's enough. But we normally get a feel for how things are going to move forward within a three-month sort of time scale really.

Tamsin Caine:

Okay, that seems pretty reasonable because I know that I have been asked many a time what happens if, and the long and short of it is that we all want to try and settle these divorce cases out of court where possible, not the least because of the court delays that you've talked about, but sometimes getting that court timetable in place, getting that application made, is just the thing that can kickstart the other party into taking some action.

Colin Davies:

No, you're absolutely right. That's right. Yes, I do, and we often make that, that point, to the client specifically. You know the client may be reluctant to sort of press on and I would say, just as you've said, that it's important to get a timetable in place that everybody is bound by and if, having got that timetable in place, there's an issue with failure to disclose, then the court can make orders compelling that disclosure, failing which there would be sanctions, and those sanctions can be. Ultimately there will be a contempt of court. So the the sanction for that could be a fine or imprisonment or both. Now, to be fair to everybody, imprisonment or both.

Colin Davies:

Now, to be fair to everybody, imprisonment for breaching disclosure requirements is very rare indeed, but there was a case, probably a couple of years ago, where that was exactly the case, where the husband there was being deliberately. You know he couldn't care less, quite frankly. So the judge said right, then see how you think about this. So off he went, but that's the most extreme of examples. But usually you're right getting the court timetable in place, knowing that there's a judge there who will make sure that the other party complies, failing which there will be these sanctions, and if the litigation conduct which is the phrase that's used of the other party is such that our client's costs have been increased unnecessarily by that conduct, then the judge can order that the other party should pay a considerable contribution towards our additional costs that have been incurred by reason of that failure to do what the court requires.

Colin Davies:

And in some cases the court can take the view well, if you're not going to give me all the information I need to see precisely what there is, I'm going to make an assumption about what there is and I'm going to make an order based on that assumption, and if you don't like it, you'll have to appeal, and in that appeal you'll have to provide the disclosure that I've been chasing you for for months anyway. So you know. But no, the court timetable is usually the thing that prompts cooperation and then a conclusion. Most cases I tell clients that most cases do not go on to a fully contested final hearing. Most cases will settle if they haven't reach an agreement on the day. After some reflection of a week or two, we generally then settle Fully contested final hearing is now quite rare, to be fair. But yeah, the court timetable is an important tool to get the thing sorted.

Tamsin Caine:

Yeah, get it moving. Well then, we're at the end of our time together. Is there anything that I should have asked you that I haven't?

Colin Davies:

um no, I don't think there is that called an end.

Tamsin Caine:

called an end to that then, yes, thank. Thank you so much for joining me. That's been really interesting and I think it will be an incredibly helpful episode for our clients and listeners to hear what you get up to when they're not in when no one's looking, that's fantastic. When no one's looking, absolutely. Thank you so much for joining us.

Colin Davies:

Well, thank you for asking. It's been a pleasure.

Tamsin Caine:

That's fantastic. Thank you for listening. If you've enjoyed today's episode, please do give us a five-star review and do subscribe to the podcast so you don't miss any episodes. Hi, and I hope you enjoyed that episode of the Smart Divorce Podcast. If you would like to get in touch, please have a look in the show notes for our details or go onto the website wwwsmartdivorcecouk. Also, if you are listening on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify and you wouldn't mind leaving us a lovely five-star review, that would be fantastic. I know that lots of our listeners are finding this is incredibly helpful in their journey through separation, divorce and dissolving a civil partnership. Also, if you would like some further support, we do have a Facebook group now. It's called Separation, divorce and Dissolution UK. Please do go on to Facebook, search up the group and we'd be delighted to have you join us. The one thing I would say is do please answer their membership questions. Okay, have a great day and take care.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Tamsin Caine

Host