Osbornes has again been recognised by the Legal 500 as one of the leading family law firms in London.

The Legal 500, published this month, is one of the leading independent directories of law firms in the UK. They have this to say about Osbornes:-

“The ‘excellent’ Osbornes is consistently recommended by market observers and regularly receives referrals from high-ranking competitors.”

Both Julian Beard (Head of Department) and Naomi Angell (international adoption) are recommended.

Autumn is upon us and it’s the start of another academic year. With a 7 year old boy recently being reported in the press as Britain’s youngest skydiver, traditionally risky activities are becoming increasingly accessible to children. But when it comes to school life, can children have a bit of rough and tumble in the playground or does our legal system wrap pupils in cotton wool, allowing the ‘compensation culture’ to cross the school gates? Victoria Gallanders investigates.

It’s a fact of life that children will sometimes get injured at school. For many adults a grazed knee in the playground was just part and parcel of growing up, and the courts too appreciate that children are bound to have some minor injuries when at school. However, sadly not all school injuries are minor. The case of Amy St Johnston, who became partially paraplegic after falling out of a school window, was highly publicised back in June and shows that unfortunately school children can suffer life changing injuries when at school. This warning was reinforced this month when a school in Boston was fined £16,500 by the HSE after a 16 year old girl lost most of her fingers to burns sustained from plaster of Paris in an art lesson.

Three common scenarios when a school pupil may suffer injury through no fault of their own are when they are injured by another child who was insufficiently supervised, injured when using school equipment, or injured in poorly maintained grounds. Each of these situations is looked at in turn below:

Supervision

It is well established that schools and teachers should ensure that pupils are safe at school. One aspect of this is supervising children to prevent them from injuring themselves and one another. The courts accept that as children get older they will need less supervision, except when participating in more risky activities when a higher level of supervision is required. Similarly, as children get older they are more aware of the consequences of their actions, with the result that even if poorly supervised, blame may be apportioned to the wrongdoing child themselves as well as the school.

So when will a school be liable for insufficiently supervising children? The answer is that there are no hard and fast rules for this and cases tend to turn on their facts. For example, in Palmer v Cornwall County Council (2009) a year 9 pupil was hit in the eye by a rock thrown by a fellow year 9 pupil during their lunch break. The accident occurred on school fields and there was only one dinner lady supervising approximately 300 pupils from years 7 – 10. The Court of Appeal found that to have just one supervisor watching over the year 7 and 8 pupils and glancing at the year 9 and 10 pupils was negligent and the local authority was therefore ordered to pay compensation to the injured child. However, this is contrasted with Pettican v Enfield LBC (1970) where a child’s eye was poked by a piece of chalk when children were fooling around during indoor break time on a wet day. Although teachers had to supervise more than one classroom, the local authority was found not to be liable. Liability therefore depends on the individual circumstances of each case.

A school or local authority’s duty to supervise children can also extend to before and after the school day. For example, when children are waiting outside school for lessons to start and making their way home in the afternoon they can be particularly vulnerable to passing motorists. In July 2009 The Hackney Gazette reported an all too familiar story of a pupil who broke his shoulder and arm in a road traffic accident with a motorcyclist outside his school. Whilst liability for such accidents may sometimes lay with the motorist, schools and local authorities should also ensure that children are supervised appropriately outside the school gates.

School equipment

Schools should also ensure that pupils are reasonably safe when using school equipment. Therefore if a child is injured when using defective or unsuitable playground apparatus or sports equipment, the school may be liable. Schools should make sure that play equipment is suitable for the ages of pupils at the school. So, for example, climbing frames should not be too high for younger children, and there should be soft tarmac or bark chippings below them to minimise injury if a child were to fall.

School equipment also covers desks, scissors, test tubes…in fact most school property which a child uses in the course of a school day. Again, when determining whether equipment is suitable, the court will look at a child’s age. For example, in Butt v Cambridgeshire and Ely CC (1970) a child was poked in the eye with a pair of scissors. The class was of 9 and 10 year olds and the local authority was not found liable. In contrast however, the local authority in Black v Kent City Council (1983) was found liable when a seven year old was poked in the eye by sharp scissors, as blunt ended scissors would have been more suitable for this age group. Therefore if a child is injured by unsuitable or faulty equipment, they may be entitled to compensation but again the case will turn on its facts.

Poorly maintained grounds

Finally, many school injuries result from trips, slips and falls. Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, schools must take reasonable care to ensure that pupils are reasonably safe when on school premises. This means that if they trip over a raised pavement slab, or a divot in a playing field, and the school had not acted reasonably in not spotting and remedying the defect, the child could be entitled to compensation. When considering what is reasonable, the courts accept that a child would not be expected to be as careful as an adult, and so there is a higher standard that schools must reach to escape liability.

If a pupil wanders into an area that is out of bounds, and is therefore a trespasser, the school could still be liable for an accident that occurs. This can pose a great concern to schools, as the courts have found occupiers liable for accidents caused by out of bounds premises such as sky lights and fire escapes. However the standard that the school must meet is much lower than when a pupil is allowed on the premises, and essentially they only have to protect pupils from dangers that they are aware of or should reasonably be aware of.

Therefore in short, the courts do accept that sometimes pupils will suffer minor injuries at school and they should not be smothered in cotton wool. However this does not negate the fact that children can be seriously injured when under a school’s care, and should therefore be protected. Whether a school is liable for an accident will largely depend on the individual facts of the case, and parents should therefore contact a lawyer as soon as possible if they feel that their child has a potential claim.

Victoria Gallanders is a personal injury solicitor at Osbornes. If you wish to discuss a school accident or any other type of claim, she can be contacted on 0207 485 8811 or at victoriagallanders@osbornes.net

When an ancillary relief order is made it may contain provision for one party to pay the other spousal maintenance (or “periodical payments”). This is usually for a defined amount per month or it may be expressed as a percentage of the payer’s income. The level of maintenance will be based, amongst other things, on the parties’ needs as assessed at the time the order was made and their financial resources. But what if the circumstances of the parties change after the order is made? For example, what if the payer loses his or her job? Or the payee finds that they are struggling to make ends meet?

In these situations it may be possible to seek an order from the court to vary a maintenance award. The amount can be varied (upward or downward), the term may be changed, arrears discharged, the order may be temporarily suspended or the court may exercise its power to capitalise the remaining maintenance payments. The application to vary can be made by either the payer or the payee.

Applying for Variation

In order to make an application to vary maintenance, there are various elements which need to be satisfied:

• There must be an existing maintenance order in place, even if it is only a “nominal” maintenance order.
• The payee must not have remarried because on remarriage maintenance payments end.
• The applicant must satisfy the test laid down in statute which is that the court will take into account “all the circumstances of the case…(and this) shall include any change in any of the matters to which the court was required to have regard when making the order.”

Applying the Test

As is often the case in family law, the court has wide discretion to decide when or if to allow a variation of maintenance. The first consideration will be of the welfare of any child under 18. Other relevant factors will be the relative financial resources of each party, their ages and their needs. The court will also want to know what has happened in the intervening years since the ancillary relief order was made, how things have changed and why they have changed.

The court also has a duty to consider, on an application for variation, whether or not there should now be a clean break. This could be achieved by capitalising future maintenance by the payer paying a lump sum in lieu of future maintenance payments.

Case law

Very broadly, case law has seen a general trend towards allowing variation of maintenance and allowing payees to increase the length of maintenance orders where they were made for a specific term only. The focus has shifted from the payee having to argue for any continuation of maintenance to the payer having to argue against the continuation of it.

The court may also take into account the extent to which the person reliant on the maintenance has tried to become financially independent, although this will depend on factors such as their age, resources and whether they were in a position to become independent. In the case of North v North [2007] EWCA Civ 760 the court limited a wife’s claim to increase her maintenance because she had not tried to obtain gainful employment and had frittered away her money on a serious of unwise business decisions and a lavish lifestyle since the divorce. Nevertheless, the court still awarded her an increase of maintenance because it said that she could not be blamed for the businesses she invested in going bust.

Latest Cases

This year, two cases in particular considered the matter of variation of maintenance. Both were cases where the applicants were trying to increase the amount they received. In McFarlane v McFarlane [2009] EWHC 891 the applicant was successful in arguing that she should receive an increase in her maintenance payments. Mr McFarlane’s income had steadily increased and Mrs McFarlane said she needed more money to meet her own and the children’s needs. Her maintenance was increased based on a percentage of the husband’s income rather than on the basis of a defined amount per annum but the court limited the maintenance to 2015 which is when the husband is due to retire. The court left it open to Mrs McFarlane to apply again in 2015 if she is still not financially independent. Critics might argue that this leaves little incentive to people like Mrs McFarlane to become financially independent when she has the option of seeking further resources from Mr McFarlane. The case is somewhat unusual in that Mr McFarlane was, and is, extremely wealthy and so there was a surplus of income available to be shared between the parties. It was also relevant that Mr McFarlane had remarried and his second wife was also a high earner contributing towards the household and therefore there was more “surplus” to be divided.

Another recent case on variation this year was Hovorostovsky v Hovorostovsky [2009] EWCA Civ 79. In this case, the payer’s income increased dramatically while the payee was accepted to be without an earning capacity and a lifelong dependent of her former husband. An increase of the level of periodical payments was ordered by the court. However, the court did not accept that the payee who was the former wife in this case, needed to be compensated for having given up her career as a dancer prior to her marriage to her husband in 1989. In contrast, in the case of Mrs McFarlane, above the court held she did deserve to be compensated for giving up her high flying career as a solicitor to look after the family when she got married.

Alternative Options

Applying to court for a variation of maintenance obviously has a cost element attached to it and this needs to be balanced against the prospects of being successful in any application. It is important to take advice on this aspect.

An alternative option to litigation might be to try mediation through a family lawyer or to try negotiation through solicitors.

If there are children involved, it is important to remember that spousal maintenance is separate from and usually additional to child maintenance, which all non-resident parents are obliged to provide. More information on child maintenance can be found at www.childmaintenanceoptions.com and at www.csa.gov.uk. Also where children are involved, it may be possible to pursue a claim for a lump sum, property or periodical payments under the Children Act which does not require there to be a maintenance order or even that the parties were ever married.

If you would like any more information on variation of maintenance please contact Paven Basuita or any member of Osbornes family department.

News Source : www.osbornes.net

Getting older and death are two things most of us prefer not to think about. Perhaps this is why more than 60% of us die without having made a Will. Planning for the future is essential to provide for family and friends, maximise tax savings and avoid leaving financial affairs in chaos.

We provide a comprehensive range of services designed to

news source: www.osbornes.net

Naomi Angell  of Osbornes takes us through the adoption process     

Naomi Angell

THE RECENT TV PROGRAMME Find me a Family focussed on the problems in finding adoptive families for the hard to place children in the care system who struggle to find a family to call their own.

The starting point for people thinking of adoption is often a baby or toddler so that they can have the closest experience to bringing up their own child. However there are now very few babies available for adoption, with seismic changes in social attitudes towards unmarried mothers,abortion and family structures.

The programme encouraged families thinking about adopting to look beyond the cute babies or toddlers to the children waiting in the care system to find a family; children with medical problems, sibling groups who should not be separated unless there is no alternative or older children.

Find me a Family also followed three very different types of families: a married couple who had been unable to conceive a much wanted second child after having their first; a single woman; and a male same sex couple.

The Adoption and Children Act 2002, the most up to date Act of Parliament on domestic adoption, introduced the right for gay couples and heterosexual cohabiting couples to adopt. The TV programme followed the families through the adoption process, a system with a reputation for its intrusiveness, capriciousness and length and dispelled some of the myths while explaining others.

The question is often asked why being assessed for adoption has to be so rigorous when having your own baby can happen without thought or planning and does not involve having to answer social workers’ questions about your own childhood experiences and your views about disciplining your future child. What a family will learn in the preparation and assessment process for adoption is that they need to understand themselves and their responses to situations when bringing up a child who has lost its own family.

It is not true that age or weight are automatic bars to adopting. But an adoption agency will need to be satisfied that an adoptive family is of an age and is likely to be in good enough health to bring an adopted child up into adulthood, to minimise the risk of the child suffering a second loss during their childhood.

A family’s application to adopt will go before the adoption agency’s adoption panel. The adoption panel is independent of the adoption agency and includes adopters,adopted adults and a doctor, as well as social workers. They will consider the detailed report prepared by the family’s social worker and make a decision on whether the family is suitable to adopt. The adopters will be able to attend the panel meeting and have a right to an independent review by a national body if they are not satisfied with the decision.

With a positive home study report the search for a child can start. The family’s social worker will work with them in trying to identify the right child for that family. As the TV programme showed, the time this takes can vary greatly. The child’s social worker needs to be sure that the family are right for that child. Where a suitable match is possible, the child’s social worker will meet the adoptive family and give them detailed information on the child’s background and needs. Then the adoption panel will recommend whether there should be a match between the child and if positive, introductions between the child and the adoptive family will begin.

Once the child joins the adoptive family, the adopters will apply to the court for an adoption order. With recent changes in the law this is unlikely to be a difficult process as any opposition by the child’s birth parents to the adoption will have been dealt with by the court before the child was placed with the adopters. If there are unexpected problems in the adoption proceedings, the local authority should pay the adopter’s legal costs for representation. In all, a long journey and not without its challenges, but an opportunity to change the lives of the children waiting for a family to call their own and of the adopters hoping to have a child to make their lives complete, while at the same time giving a future to a child in need.

Naomi Angell specialises in children’s law and has particular expertise in international and domestic adoption,children’s cases with an immigration interface, child protection and alternative reproduction cases, such as surrogacy. She chairs the adoption panel of a national adoption agency and has been closely involved in the parliamentary process of the recent new adoption legislation. She is a Consultant at Osbornes and qualified as a solicitor in 1973. Contact her by email naomiangell@osbornes.net or call 0207681 8687.

News Source : http://www.osbornes.net

The question “should I get a pre-nup?” is one that has caused suffering to the minds of many a matrimonial lawyer. The issue of the importance of pre nuptial agreements has again been considered by the Courts in England. In July of this year the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the case of Radmacher v Granatino. This is the latest of a number of recent cases (such as Crossley v Crossley and MacLeod v MacLeod) where Judges have considered the impact of pre nuptial agreements on divorces. The Court in Radmacher v Granatino was persuaded that the pre-nuptial agreement should have a significant bearing on the order made. The position, although still not altogether clear, is now that if the pre-nuptial agreement was made fairly and without breaching the UK’s laws regarding contract then it will have a significant effect on any final order.

Unlike in many other countries, the position in England in relation to pre nuptial agreements has been one of uncertainty. There has not been (and there still is not) a law saying that if you enter into a pre nuptial agreement then this agreement will be upheld. Traditionally the English Courts have looked at pre nuptial agreements with a degree of scepticism, perhaps at best it could be seen as one of many factors to be taken into account. In the past this has left matrimonial lawyers scratching their heads when asked “should I get a pre-nup?”. The rather unsatisfactory answer was that that you could enter into a pre-nup but it may or may not be upheld and it may or may not have any impact in a future divorce settlement. Perhaps the lawyers were then able to advise that if you both fully disclose your financial positions, obtain legal advice and as long as there is no big change in circumstances (such as the birth of children) then maybe the Court will be persuaded to make an order in the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement.

So has the answer changed now that we have the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Radmacher v Granatino? In one sense the simple answer is no. There is no statutory basis for pre nuptial agreements being considered binding contractual agreements and the Court at any level cannot change this. Ultimately, only parliament can address the issue of whether or not and in what circumstances pre nuptial agreements should be held to be binding. Whilst the Law Commission is now going to investigate this issue, the reform of matrimonial law is a political hot potato and neither of the major political parties have demontrated a real willingness to consider change. As Lord Justice Thorpe in Radmacher v Granatino himself notes, “In February 1998 the Solicitor General announced that the government intended to reform the law of ancillary relief as a matter of urgency to achieve greater certainty and predictability of outcome … The government however, retreated without further explanation from its earlier stated intention and experts were left to contemplate a future without legislative reform.” Further legislative reform may be perchance only a dream.

However, this is a rather simplified way to look at matters. The reality is that the Court decisions have shown an increasing support for pre nuptial agreements. For example, in Radmacher v Granatino there was a big change in circumstances in that two children were born during the marriage. This did not prevent the Court from being influenced by the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement, as the birth of children was forseeable. Whilst the Court cannot find that the pre nuptial agreements are binding, they are becoming more and more persuasive.

In the Radmacher v Granatino case there were complexities. Neither of the parties were English and the pre-nuptial agreement was reached in Germany (and in what seems an attempt to complicate matters further, the marriage was celebrated in the UK and Switzerland and the parties then lived in London and New York). As with most of the matrimonial cases considered by the higher courts the family was very wealthy and the husband and wife both had very different stories as to why they entered into the agreement. Although it is very unlikely that these particular circumstances are going to be repeated, the case should not be dismissed as a one off. Whilst the international elements were important factors in the Court’s reasoning, the conclusion that the Court reached was that the Court should take into account the

“marital property regime into which the parties freely entered”.

Now if the agreement were reached in England then by implication the laws about written agreements should also be taken into account. This implication was further reinforced the Court’s consideration of the difference between pre-nuptial agreements and post-nuptial agreements. Post-nuptial agreements do have some legal standing and there is significant and long standing case law upholding their persuasive value. The Court in Radmacher v Granatino, in an clear move away from the findings in the earlier Isle of Man case of MacLeod v Macleod (decided by the Privy Council, the House of Lords under a different guise), felt that there was little in reality to distinguish a pre-nuptial agreement from a post-nuptial agreement.

So we can see that the Radmacher v Granatino case has implications wider than the the very narrow set of facts in that case. There was not, and could not, be a deviation from the rules under which the Court must consider applications for ancillary relief and the Court of Appeal considered the factors listed in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act and applied those factors in the Radmacher v Granatino case. The Court is not asked to consider these factors, it is specifically told that it has a “duty … to have regard to all of the circumstances of the case”. There is no doubt now that the Court considers that it has a duty to have regard to the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement and furthermore that it should take into account that the agreement was a freely entered into written agreement (assuming of course that this is not in dispute).

The Court of Appeal was strongly influenced by the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement in Radmacher v Granatino, to the extent that whilst the other section 25 factors were taken into account, the consideration of the husband’s financial circumstances and future financial circumstances appeared to be more on the basis of his role as a father than his role as a husband. The pre-nuptial agreement was of great persuasive value to the Court, and this was despite the issues surrounding the making of the agreement (such as the husband not having sought legal advice in relation to the terms of the agreement).

The case of Radmacher v Granatino has shown that the Courts will take into account the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement and furthermore that they can find these agreements very persuasive in making final orders regarding financial disputes. Whether or not the Law Commission will recommend change and parliament will effect change remains to be seen. However, the decision in Radmacher v Granatino does now change the reply to the original question. In many circumstances it may now be time to take arms against a sea of troubles through a pre nuptial agreement.

Of course, a pre-nuptial agreement may not be for everyone. The other factors in section 25 of the matrimonial causes act are all also to be taken into account in the division of the matrimonial finances and the first consideration is still the welfare of any child of the family. It is hard to envisage how this would change even if legislative reform does eventually happen. A pre-nuptial agreement is certainly something that should be considered carefully when there is a possibility that any future financial dispute will not be resolved solely on the basis of needs. What can be advised with more confidence than previously is that if a fair and reasonable pre-nuptial agreement is reached, without breaching the laws of the country in which the agreement is made, and the implementation of the agremeent would not impact upon the welfare of any children then it is now likely that the Court will uphold the agreement and make an order in similar terms.

So whether” to pre or not to pre” remains a question for the individual, but entering into such an agreement now provides more certainty than had previously been the case. It is now much more likely that a pre nuptial agreement will persuade a Court to make an order in those terms and it will almost certainly have some effect on the Court’s decision.

It’s official – the long hot summer that we were promised has turned out to be something of a damp squib.  With some foreign travel companies even providing sunshine guarantees on their holidays, it’s no wonder that despite the exchange rates, British holiday makers are changing their pounds for Euros and Dollars and heading abroad for some warm weather. But if you decide to take your car across the channel, or go on a fly-drive holiday, it’s important to know the rules of the road in your destination. Victoria Gallanders looks at how you should prepare before driving abroad, and what you should do if you’re unfortunate enough to have an accident in a foreign land.

Do some research

Before you pack your suitcases, it’s a good idea to check the driving laws for the country you’re going to.  Now most people know that you have to drive on the right in mainland Europe but there are some laws which aren’t so well known, for example:

• Did you know that in France the speed limit on the motorways changes when it rains?
• Or that in most European countries the drink driving limit is over a third less than in the UK?
• Or even that in Croatia cars must be driven with their headlights on at all times?

Doing 15 minutes of research online could save you hours of aggravation with the local police at your port of call, so it’s well worth doing.

Check your insurance cover

One key point to check before you drive abroad is that you have insurance for outside the UK. If you’re taking your own car, contact your insurer and upgrade your cover if necessary. If you’re driving in Europe, ask your insurer to provide you with a ‘Green Card’.  This is a document that is recognised in over 40 countries essentially confirms that you have insurance which fulfils minimum third party requirements.

If you’re hiring a car at your destination, you should have some form of insurance as part of the package. However, again you should check the level of cover and upgrade it if you feel necessary.

If you’re planning on driving in the US, there is a multitude of insurance cover available and the legal requirements vary from state to state. For example in California the minimum insurance requirements are fairly low – just $15,000 for injury/death to one person. This means that if you were seriously injured in an accident and the other driver only had minimum cover, their insurers would only pay out the compulsory $15,000 for your injuries. The driver themselves would be responsible for paying the balance, but this could leave you vastly under compensated. You may therefore want to look into topping up your own car insurance so that it would pay out in this situation, or find suitable travel insurance to protect you.

Pack your car kit

As well as packing your suntan lotion and swimming costume, remember to take your car’s holiday essentials too. Different countries require drivers to carry certain items in their cars by law, and in some countries police can perform checks and issue on the spot fines. Examples of items that drivers must carry include first aid kits in Spain, headlight adjusters in Germany, and warning triangles in Switzerland. There are many websites where you can check the requirements for your destination.

You must also ensure that the items are accessible. This isn’t just for practical reasons, as in some countries the law actually stipulates where the items should be carried. For example in France by law you must carry a fluorescent jacket in the main part of the car (i.e. not the boot) in case of a breakdown or accident. It’s therefore important to keep the required items to hand.

If you’re travelling in Europe it’s also a good idea to keep an Accident Report Form in the car, otherwise known as a ‘Constat Amiable’. This is a form that all involved parties should complete after an accident.  You can download the forms from the internet, and it’s a good idea to take one that’s in English or bi-lingual to avoid any language problems.

Finally, in the excitement of getting ready for your holiday, don’t forget to pack your driving basics – Full UK Driving Licence (or International Driving Permit if required), Vehicle Registration document /Proof of Ownership, and UK Insurance Certificate/Green Card are essential.

After an accident

Then most important thing you can do after an accident is to report it to your insurer. Not only will this be a record of the incident occurring, but the insurer will be able to give you advice on what to do and may even be able to organise practical assistance e.g. medical treatment, a hire car etc.

Immediately after an accident you should take photographs of the position of the vehicles and the vehicle damage, in case there are any disputes later.  Also take photographs of the number plates of the other vehicles, and remember that in some countries the front and rear number plates are different.

You should also exchange full details with the other parties involved, and if you’re in Europe you should complete a Constat Amiable.  Failure to do so on your part could result in the other driver being exonerated from any blame, even if they caused the accident, and their insurers therefore may not pay out.

The police may well be called and it is usually to your benefit if they attend the scene of an accident.  In fact in many countries the police are obliged to attend.  If the police do attend, take down the officers’ details (name, badge number etc) and any reference numbers you’re given, as the police report could be vital if liability is disputed later.  If the police don’t attend then you should report the accident at the local police station.  Any type of formal police record of an accident will be important evidence, and many insurers will insist on this if you wish to make a claim.

If you’re injured

If you suffer injuries you should firstly seek medical attention. You may have to pay for medical treatment, in which case it’s important to keep receipts as you may be able to claim the cost back later.

You should also make a note of the name of the hospital that you were treated at, as you may need to obtain your medical records if you make a personal injury claim.

Finally, ask the hospital to provide you with a letter confirming what your injuries were and what treatment you received, and if the hospital could write this letter in English so much the better!

Making a personal injury claim

If you’re injured in a road traffic accident abroad and it wasn’t your fault, you will probably be entitled to some compensation. If you think you have a potential claim, you should seek the advice of a personal injury lawyer straight away. It’s important to act fast, as the deadline to bring a claim varies from country to country, and in some countries such as Turkey and Switzerland and it can be as short as one year.

The procedure for making a claim largely depends on whether your accident occurred in the EU or elsewhere. Your lawyer will be able to guide you through this, but the key points are summarised below.

• Accidents in the EU

Thanks to developments in European law, it is now much easier for UK residents to claim compensation for road traffic accidents that happened elsewhere in the EU.

Under European law, each car insurer operating within the EU must have a claims representative in the UK who your lawyer can address your claim to.  If the claim isn’t settled, you can sue the foreign insurer direct, rather than having to sue the driver. Better still, you can sue the insurer in your local court. This therefore greatly simplifies the process, as you don’t have the hassle of having to find foreign lawyers to start court proceedings in the other EU country.

If the other driver was not insured, or if the claims representative does not deal with your claim, you can still claim compensation. In these situations you are able to claim compensation from an organisation called the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB). Again, your lawyer will be able to advise you on this.

In cases against both the foreign insurer and the MIB, even though you will be making your claim in the UK, it is generally the laws of the EU country where you had your accident that will determine who is at fault (although some exceptions can apply). Therefore the speed limit, drink driving limit etc of the foreign country will apply rather than those of the UK.

For personal injury claims brought after 11 January 2009 relating to accidents that happened after 20 August 2008, the laws of where the accident occurred will also generally determine how much compensation you will receive. This may result in you being awarded a vastly different amount of compensation than if English law was used. For example, some EU countries have different laws regarding recovery of loss of earnings, and in Malta you cannot receive compensation for injuries but only for losses and expenses. However, for all other accidents the amount of victims’ compensation is calculated using English law.

• Accidents in the rest of the world

If you have an accident outside the EU, claiming compensation for your injuries is more complicated. The general rule is that you should bring your claim in the country where the accident happened.  So for example, if you had an accident in Sydney you would have to make a compensation claim in the Australian state of New South Wales.

This will require expertise from a lawyer familiar with the foreign country’s legal system, and again you should seek legal advice as soon as possible.

• Accidents on a package holiday

If you are injured in a road traffic accident whilst on a package holiday, you may be able to claim compensation from your tour operator under the Package Travel Regulations.  This would allow you to bring your claim in the UK rather than in the country where the accident happened.  Again, you should seek legal advice if this applies to you.

In short, if you are going to drive abroad, a little bit of preparation can go a long way in ensuring that your trip goes smoothly. If however you do have an accident overseas, it’s important to act quickly and seek legal advice as you may be entitled to compensation.

Bon voyage!

Victoria Gallanders is a solicitor in the personal injury department. If you wish to discuss a road traffic accident or any other type of claim, please email her at victoriagallanders@osbornes.net

news source : Telegraph.co.uk

Here is a list of what is thought to be the highest divorce settlements

In 1994, Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphy separated Photo: AP

According to Russian news sources, Irina Abramovich settled for $300m (£155m) Photo: GETTY

1. Rupert and Anna Murdoch – $1.7 billion

Rupert married Anna in the 1960s, with the pair remaining together for 32 years, having three children. They split amicably in 1998. The divorce was finalized in June 1999 when he agreed to let her leave with $1.7 billion. 17 days later he married Wendi Deng.

2. Adnan and Soraya Khashoggi – $874 million

Saudi businessman Adnan made his money as an international arms dealer for the Saudi royal family. He then launched his company Triad, based in Switzerland, owning banks hotels and real estate across the world. He married Soraya in 1961. Their 1982 divorce resulted in an estimated $874 million settlement.

3. Craig and Wendy McCaw – $460 million

Craig made his money turning a failing TV cable service into a successful business, eventually selling for $755 million. In 1981 he then acquired cellular phone licenses, eventually selling to phone company AT&T for approximately $12 billion, becoming its largest single shareholder.

The pair met at Stanford University when she tutored him, with them marrying in 1974. In 1995 divorce proceedings were initiated with Wendy wanting her share to support a $200,000 a month lifestyle.

4. Roman and Irina Abramovich – $300 million

It had been speculated that the settlement could have left her the world’s richest ever divorcee. But according to Russian news sources, Mrs Abramovich settled for $300m (£155m). The figure included the value of homes in Britain and Moscow, as well as a yacht and private plane. At one point it was thought he would have to pay a settlement of at least $1 billion.

5. Michael and Maya Polsky – $184 million

According to court records, the couple married in the Ukraine in 1975, coming to the US in 1976 with “only four suitcases and $500 in cash. After sighting irreconcilable difference in 2003, Maya Polsky filed for divorce from energy magnate Michael Polsky. In October 2006 a Chicago judge said Mrs Polsky was entitled to at least half of the couple’s assets.

6. John ‘Jack’ Welch and Jane Beasley – $180 million

Welch is the former Chairman and CEO of General Electric, the technology and service conglomerate in New York, now ranked as the world’s largest company. The couple married in April 1989, divorcing in 2003. While Welch had reportedly written a prenuptial agreement, there was a 10-year time limit. Beasley reportedly left with amount to be in the range of $180 million.

7. Michael and Juanita Jordan – $168million

The most expensive celebrity divorce in history. The former Chicago Bulls basketball superstar married Juanita Vanoy in 1989. They divorced in 2007. It is thought negotiations between the couple added £20 million to the final deal from an initial settlement. The marriage had shown signs of trouble in the past with Juanita filing for divorce in 2002, although they announced a reconciliation.

8. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey – $150 million

When Diamond met Marcia Murphey, he was already married to his first wife. In 1994, they separated, she citing “irreconcilable difference”. The singer claims he willingly gave her the money.

9. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving – $100 million

Amy Irving shot to fame in 1976 when she played the lone teen survivor in Carrie. Spielberg began to make a name for himself in Hollywood, following Jaws. The pair married in 1985, but the pair broke up four years later. He gave Irving, the mother of their son Max $100 million.

10. John and Beverly Charman – $95 million

The pair met in 1969 at school. When they married in 1976 neither had significant resources. In November 2003, Mr Charman, nicknamed “King of the London Insurance Market”, told his wife he was setting up residence in Bermuda and their marriage was over. He initially offered her £6 million cash, but she argued that the sum was not enough. The judge decreed a fair settlement would involve him giving 37 per cent of his assets. Mr Charman had a subsequent appeal dismissed. It is thought to be Britain’s highest divorce settlement.

The saga of Michael Jackson’s children continues to become more complicated.

Mark Lester — a former child star and godfather to Jackson’s kids — said there is a possibility that he is actually the father of Paris Jackson. Lester admitted that he has no proof of this, but he did say he donated sperm when Michael was first trying to have children.

Paris Michael , Prince Michael II , Prince Michael

Paris Michael, Prince Michael, Prince Michael II (aka Blanket)

“I would make absolutely no claim on Paris or any of the kids, but there is the possibility that one of those kids is mine,” he said. “And even if I was, it would make no difference to the status quo of the family anyway.”

Lester’s 15-year-old daughter was also on hand for a side-by-side comparison to a photo of Paris, with Lester pointing out both of their high cheekbones. But when pressed about the strangeness of the situation, Lester said that it was a gift “and I didn’t want anything in return for it.” Lester has stated that he is willing to take a paternity test.

Jackson's Kids

Katherine Jackson, who was awarded custody of Michael’s children (as Michael wished in his will), told ‘Today’ through Jackson family lawyer Londell McMillan: “These newfound efforts appear to be self-serving, lack legal standing and do not serve the best interests of the children.”

news source: Mirror.co.uk

Michael Jackson’s mother Katherine Jackson and the singer’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe have reached an out-of-court agreement over custody rights for the late star’s children.

According to US news reports, the arrangement gives Katherine Jackson full, permanent custody of the King of Pop’s three children, while Rowe will be granted “meaningful visitation rights”.

Speaking to the NBC’s The Early Show, a lawyer for Katherine said: “It’s an agreement, an agreement for the best interests of the children. This is not a money deal.

“All of the parties are resolved. There is no situation better for these children than for them to be raised and reared in the loving care of Mrs Katherine Jackson.”

Rowe, who was married to Jackson from 1996 until 1999, is the mother of Prince Michael, 12, and Paris Katherine, 11, while 7-year-old Blanket was born via an anonymous surrogate.

She signed away her parental rights to her two kids in 2001, describing Jackson as a “wonderful man… a brilliant father.”

However, a Los Angeles judge reversed the order in 2004 after Rowe cited concerns over publicity related to Jackson’s prosecution for child molestation. Rowe later settled the case, reportedly securing visitation rights.

On June 29, a Los Angeles court named Katherine Jackson as the temporary guardian of the three children.