Natasha Slabas, Solicitor at Philcox Gray, has recently written an interesting article on the need for reform in Surrogacy Law. To read the full article click here:
The Partners and Staff of Philcox Gray are delighted to confirm the inclusion of our firm in the 2015 edition of the Legal 500. Both the family team and the housing team were listed in this year’s rankings. The inclusion of our firm recognises the hard work and commitment of all of the members of our team.
In the family team, Clare Gaskin was singled out for praise. The editorial comment recorded “Philcox Gray & Co has four Children’s Panel members, and two of its team have higher rights of audience in civil proceedings. Clare Gaskin is a ‘passionate practitioner’”
In the housing team the work done was considered to be in the third tier and it was noted that Ruth Camp had particular specialism in possession and housing disrepair.
If there is a housing or family matter with which we can assist you, please do not hesitate to contact us for help from our acclaimed team.
Darren Francis represented a husband in divorce and related financial matters upon the breakdown of his marriage. The main assets of the marriage included the former matrimonial home in the UK and property in the West Indies, the latter of which the husband argued he owned in his sole name due to inheriting the property some 30 years prior to the marriage. Proceedings were particularly fractious, with the wife asserting that the property in the West Indies was used as a family holiday home during the marriage and therefore was a matrimonial asset. At the final hearing, the Court found in the husband’s favour and deemed that the property in the West Indies was indeed a non-matrimonial asset and the wife had no legal or equitable interest in it. The Court ordered immediate sale of the former matrimonial home and the proceeds split so as to rehouse the parties.
The matter was further complicated by the wife’s continued refusal to vacate the former matrimonial home to effect sale. The wife was informed of the husband’s intention to issue enforcement proceedings under rule 9.24 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, to request the Court to order that she give up possession of the property so that the sale may proceed. In light of this, the wife decided to comply with the original Final Order and the sale is now proceeding, much to the husband’s relief.
If you need help or advice with divorce and associated financial matters, please contact us to see if we can assist you.
Re A v B  EWHC 1562 (Fam)
Philcox Gray represented a father of a child on a successful Defence of an application under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 or Article 11 of Counsel Regulation (EC) 2201/2003.
Pauffley LJ gave guidance on what she had described as “an extraordinary dispute”. The mother is a West African national, living in Germany, the father an English national living in London with his wife who is a West African national. Due to significant medical difficulties, the father and wife were unable to conceive a child of their own. The child was conceived in February 2013. The arrangements for this and where the child would live after birth, having lived for four months in Germany, together with the identity of the main carer for the four months following birth, were fiercely contested.
Both parents had rights of custody, the mother under the German Civil Code; the father as a result of the child’s registration of birth in November 2013. The facts between the parties were significantly disputed. The mother’s case was that she would naturally conceive a child with a father who he would see regularly. The father’s case was that there had been an agreement that the child would live with him and his wife in England, seeing the mother during holidays.
Pauffley LJ considered the principles set out by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court in A v A & Another (Children: Habitual Residence)  UKSC 60 and in Mercredi v. Chaffe (Case C-497/10)  Fam 22.
Pauffley LJ determined that the wife did not relinquish her habitual residence when staying in Germany for 4 months to care for the child after birth because habitual residence may exist in a State which is the home of the family unit of which the infant is part, and where he would be but for force majeure.”
The integration was therefore ruled as being with the father and his wife and the intervention of the Convention for swift return could not be applied.
To read the full judgment click here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/1562.html
An interesting article regarding the case can be found on the The Times Online website (subscription required to read in full): http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article4467869.ece and also on the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3120189/Husband-got-wife-s-approval-child-African-woman-usual-way-2-000-wins-right-bring-boy-UK.html
At the hearing, the father was represented by Andrew Norton and Marlene Cayoun of 1 Garden Court, instructed by Natasha Slabas, Solicitor at Philcox Gray.
If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.
Philcox Gray represented a father of a young child on a successful appeal against a Care Order and Placement Order for adoption.
McFarlane LJ gave guidance on the correct approach to be taken to the threshold criteria by local authorities. Aikens’ LJ view was that this case exhibited many of the shortcomings highlighted by the President of the Family Division in the recent case of Re A (a child)  EWFC 11. Aikens LJ provided a clear summary of the fundamental principles underpinning care cases and in particular adoption cases, including:
- In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is ordered, to demonstrate that “nothing else will do”, when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare;
- If the local authority’s case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove;
- In attempting to establish that the threshold criteria have been met, the distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised;
- The local authority must prove that there is the necessary link between the facts upon which it relies and its case on Threshold;
- The State must not remove children from their parents’ care simply because facts are established of the parents ‘failings’, be it criminality, alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness or disability. The local authority must demonstrate, in the first instance, that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm by reason of one or more of those facts.
The case will now be re-heard.
To read the full judgment click here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/222.html
An interesting article regarding the case can be found on the Family Law Week website: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed144503
At the hearing, the father was represented by Daisy Hughes of 1 Garden Court, instructed by Sheila Donn, Partner at Philcox Gray. Sheila Donn was assisted by Darren Francis and Poppy Bourke.
If you need help or advice with any family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.
The Government “does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock – on costs of its [Legal Aid] reforms across the public sector”
The Public Accounts Committee has accused the Government of having made cuts to legal aid without understanding the potential consequences of these cuts. Many of its findings will resonate with those who provide social welfare advice.
In its report published today, on the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) the committee said the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is on course to make a “significant and rapid reduction” in spending, but has little idea of whether the £300m annual saving is outweighed by additional costs elsewhere.
The committee chair said it was “deeply disturbing” that changes to legal aid had been pushed through on the basis of “no evidence in many areas, and without making good use of the evidence that it did have in other areas”. Despite lawyers in the social welfare sector having warned the MoJ about the impact of its cuts to civil legal aid and the increased costs they would create elsewhere, it was not the type of evidence they were willing to listen to. The level of spend seems to have been the critical factor in driving cuts in legal aid.
The report found that the changes in Civil Legal Aid had limited access to mediation for family cases. Mediations for family law matters fell by 38% in the year after the reforms, rather than increasing by 74% as the Ministry expected. The short-sightedness of the Government is made clear in these figures. Despite the MoJ knowing that solicitors were the major channel through which people were referred to mediation, they failed to foresee that removing legal aid for solicitors would reduce referrals. The report recommends that the Ministry should closely monitor the take up of mediation following the changes it made in April 2014, and should take prompt action if this does not increase as expected. The fall in mediation in family law matters contrasts with an increase in the number of contested family cases reaching the courts. The concern caused by these figures, is compounded by the rise in “litigants in person “in the family courts – especially in cases involving children and the rise in contested family cases.
The report said that the complexity of the justice system is preventing people accessing justice, if they are no longer eligible for legal aid. Recent Government proposals for another significant increase in civil Court fees, including applications to suspend an eviction warrant or set aside an order for possession, are likely to further limit access to justice.
Sheila Donn and Beverley King, joint managing Partners at Philcox Gray Solicitors and Mediators believe that Legal Aid makes a significant difference to families and households, to local area economics, and also contributes to significant public savings. Their experience is that early legal advice prevents problems from escalating into unnecessary and expensive litigation.
Article by: Philcox Gray Solicitors & Mediators
Article Date: 4 February 2015
A young couple were refused accommodation by Greenwich Council after they asked to be housed in order for their son, who was in foster care, to be returned to them. Redbridge Council had removed their son from their care some 2 ½ years earlier, and the Family Court indicated in September 2014 that the child should be returned to his parents once they were in suitable accommodation.
The couple approached Greenwich Council for temporary accommodation, but were told that the Council did not owe them a duty as their son was not part of their household. No accommodation was offered in spite of the fact that the Council was aware, through the care proceedings, that the child was only still in foster care because the couple did not have appropriate accommodation. In this case, the local authority should have accepted the child as part of the household and offered temporary accommodation. Because this did not happen, the child could not be returned to his parents, and their long wait to have him back with them continued.
David Araya represented the couple in relation to the issue of housing. Following a threat of judicial review made to Greenwich Council, and an Interim Supervision Order made by the Family Court, the Council agreed to house the couple and include their son in the household.
Philip Wilkins of Hudgell & Partners acted for the father in the care proceedings, and worked with David to ensure that the issue of housing by Greenwich Council was resolved. Happily, the offer of accommodation came just before Christmas and the family will now be able to work towards being reunited.
If you have been refused temporary accommodation from a local authority, you may be able to challenge this decision. Please contact us to see if we can assist you.
To read the full judgment click here: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/775.html
For a comment on the case from a family law perspective, click here:
For a comment on the case from a housing law perspective, click here:
Isabelle Le Gentil represented a young mother within care proceedings. The mother, who was herself a minor, and her baby had been placed in two mother and baby foster placements pre-proceedings. The placements broke down due to a number of reasons. The mother had asked the local authority to be moved from the placement. Mother had explained to the local authority the reasons why the previous foster placements had broken down but the local authority did not seem to accept her reasons and decided to issue care proceedings. The local authority however agreed to move the mother and her baby to another mother and baby foster placement.
The local authority did not issue care proceedings until two months after the mother and her baby moved to the new mother and baby foster placement. By then it was clear that mother had engaged very well in the current mother and baby foster placement and both mother and baby were settled there. Mother was happy to remain at the mother and baby foster placement. The local authority were seeking additional assessments of mother; these were however opposed by both the mother and the children’s guardian. In light of this, the local authority decided to withdraw their application for a Care Order.
If you need help or advice within a family matter, please contact us to see if we can assist you.
A man has succeeded in his claim that Southwark Council acted unfairly, negligently and unlawfully by conspiring to evict him and covering it up with a series of lies after his eviction. All of his belongings were removed and destroyed, and he ended up being street homeless for over a year.
The man was a tenant in Peckham for 23 years and had been in rent arrears. The Council had obtained a Possession Order in 2006 and wanted to enforce this by obtaining a bailiff’s Warrant. Because the Order was over six years old, the Council should have applied for permission from a Judge to evict the tenant. However, this was not done and the Court office simply issued a Warrant for the tenant’s eviction.
The Court concluded that the Council had failed to follow its own procedures relating to evictions and storing and disposing of belongings. Officers in the Council had decided to evict the tenant at all costs, whether lawfully or not, and they knew, or ignored the fact that all of the tenant’s belongings were going to be destroyed.
This was an extraordinary case with unusual circumstances. If your landlord has applied for a Warrant to evict you, you may be able to apply to Court to stop or delay the eviction and it is not late to take action. There are certain things that your landlord must do in order to lawfully evict you, especially if your landlord is a local authority or housing association. Please contact us to see if we can assist you.
LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY in partnership with Philcox Gray, Wainwright & Cummins, Anthony Gold and Hanne & Co
Drastic cuts to legal aid mean there is an ever increasing demand for free high quality social welfare law advice. So the innovative London South Bank University Legal Advice Clinic (LAC) is a vital new resource for the residents of one of London’s most deprived boroughs. What is innovative about the project is that it’s a drop-in face-to-face service. That’s great for clients who can get the advice they need immediately, and it’s great for students who are plunged straight into the advice process – always under the close supervision of university-employed solicitors or shadowing local solicitors at specialist evening advice sessions. Philcox Gray, the first firm to offer our services at the specialist evening sessions, are proud that our support for the project has been fundamental to its success.
The LAC operates out of dedicated premises on campus and is open during the University term-time. The current term runs 23rd September – 10th December 2014, and the daytime drop in opening times are:
- Tuesdays 10am – 12 noon
- Wednesdays 10am – 12 noon and 3pm – 5pm
- Access to the evening sessions is via initial assessment at the daytime drop-in sessions
Sessions can get busy and the LAC cannot guarantee to see everybody, so you should arrive early to avoid disappointment.
The LAC’s free drop in service provides basic information on any legal topic and generalist advice on social welfare law matters (except immigration). Clients are signposted and referred to local advice agencies and legal services. In appropriate cases clients are referred for specialist legal advice on family, housing and employment matters at specialist evening sessions. These specialist sessions are staffed by local solicitors who are shadowed by law student volunteers.
The Clinic has had impressive results for clients (over 1200 since it opened in September 2011) and is an inspirational learning experience. One law student described her involvement with enthusiasm:
“No other legal experience I have done has given me this level of responsibility and client contact. Working at the clinic has really boosted my confidence.”
Alan Russell Senior Lecturer, Solicitor and Director of the Legal Advice Clinic asks if such projects can plug the gap left by the attack on access to justice in his article at http://l2b.thelawyer.com/home/opinion/cut-the-gap/3003937.article
The answer? Well – such services can help, and Philcox Gray, along with other local solicitors, are committed to the project’s future.
Clients can contact the LAC at:
London South Bank University
Legal Advice Clinic
Caxton House, 13-16 Borough Road
Southwark SE1 0AA
T : 020 7815 5450
(Please note the LAC does not give advice by phone or email)