Simply click on the + sign to read the case study of your choice.

Married for 6 years, no children.

Representing Husband in divorce & financial agreement by consent

Home £208,000
Cash £5,000
Investments £5,000

Mr & Mrs T were aged 37 and 34. They were married for 6 years. Both parties worked full time for a courier service. There were no children of the family.

Whether the gift of £100,000 from Mrs T’s father in order to purchase the former matrimonial home should be treated as a contribution by Mrs T, thereby justifying a departure from equality in her favour.

Whether it could be proved that the former matrimonial home was remortgaged without Mr T’s knowledge, in which case the amount of the remortgage should be added back into the pot for the purposes of negotiation.

How Leonard Gray helped
Obtained full disclosure of both parties’ financial circumstances in order to advise Mr T fully on terms of settlement.

Instructed a handwriting expert to examine the signatures on the remortgage application. The expert concluded that Mr T did not sign the remortgage application.

We advised Mr T on his settlement options to take into account the remortgage monies that had been utilised by Mrs T.

The Results
Clients divorced.

Mrs T retained the former matrimonial home and paid Mr T a small lump sum.

Mrs T received some benefit for the initial gift of £100,000 from her father, but the full amount of the remortgage monies was added back into the pot in order to calculate Mr T’s lump sum. He therefore received a far larger lump sum than he would have had the handwriting expert not been instructed.

Mr T retained his cash and investments.

Married for 20 years, 2 children.

Representing WIFE in divorce & financial court application

Home £325,000
Cash £1,500
Investments £15,000
Pension CETV £750,000

Mr & Mrs A were aged 54 and 43. They were married for 20 years. Mrs A suffered from some ill health, which affected her ability to work full time. There were two children aged 17 and 19. Mr A worked full time for a large organisation. Mrs A worked part-time as a sales assistant.

Housing needs of both parties and how such needs should be met.
How to provide an adequate split of pension assets which was fair to both sides.
Mrs A’s earning capacity and its impact on her ability to work.
Whether spousal maintenance should be payable.

How Leonard Gray helped
Mr A refused to give full disclosure of his finances. Financial application submitted on behalf of Mrs A.

By Court order, we obtained full disclosure of Mr A’s financial circumstances in order to advise Mrs A fully on terms of settlement.

Obtained an actuarial report at our request which stated that the share needed to be 57%:43% in Mrs A’s favour to equalise gross annual pension incomes in future.

We advised Mrs A on her options including the costs of implementing a pension sharing order and the consequences of this approach. We then recommended Mrs A to a pensions specialist to assist with implementation.

The results
Clients divorced.

Mrs A retained the former matrimonial home and a small lump sum.

Mr A’s pension was shared in accordance with the actuarial report.

Mr A retained his investments.

No spousal maintenance payable.

Lived together for 3 years, 1 child aged 12 months.

 Representing the woman in respect of child contact and financial matters

Home £170,000

Mr A & Miss B were aged 29 and 25. They lived together for 3 years and had a twelve month old child at the time of separation. Miss B moved out of the family home with the child and secured rented accommodation.

Whether or not the family home should be sold.

Whether or not Miss B could be released from her mortgage liabilities if the family home was retained by Mr A.

Whether or not Mr A should receive a greater share in the family home as his parents contributed £30,000 towards the deposit. Miss B’s parents contributed £5,000.

Mr A’s contact with the child.

How Leonard Gray helped
Assessed the circumstances of the case and decided it was in both parties’ best interests to refer matters to mediation, giving them the best chance of resolving matters quickly and amicably.

Advised Miss B on her options in between mediation sessions regarding both contact and financial matters.

The Results
Mr A and Miss B agreed the level of contact and child maintenance at mediation.

Mr A retained the family home and secured Miss B’s release from her mortgage liabilities upon payment to her of a lump sum.

A Deed for Separating Cohabitants was drawn up to reflect the financial agreement reached.

Court application to remove child to live in Canada.

Parties already divorced.

Representing Father on application to the court for permission to remove the child to live in Canada. 

Within divorce proceedings three years prior to this application, Mr W was granted residence of the child. Mrs W had a history of alcohol abuse and Social Services were involved. Mr W had family in Canada and was offered a job there in a large Corporation. He sought Mrs W’s permission to remove the child to live in Canada, but this was refused.

Whether or not Mr W should be allowed to move to Canada with the child.

If permission is granted, what contact should Mrs W have with the child and how is this going to be facilitated.

How Leonard Gray helped
Advised Mr W on the merits of his application and the case law surrounding applications of this nature.

Suggested mediation to Mrs W’s solicitors as a way to try and find resolution. This was refused.

Applied to the Court for permission to remove the child permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Within proceedings, we assisted Mr W with the preparation of a relocation pack for the Court. This included details of his employment, proposed housing, his family network in Canada, the schooling in Canada and how this compares to the UK, and a detailed proposal as to contact with flight information, etc.

The results
Mr W was granted permission by the Court to remove the child permanently from England and Wales to reside in Canada.

Contact to take place as per Mr W’s proposals.