A petition for divorce cannot be started until you have been married for at least a year. There is one ground for divorce and that is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In order for a court to grant a divorce this has to be shown. The way to do this is by giving evidence in writing of one of the five following reasons: adultery, unreasonable behavior, you have lived apart for at least two years and both consent or you have lived separately for at least five years in which case you do not require the other parties consent.
Presuming the spouse being divorced does not object the process is mainly administrative and will take approximately four to six months. In order to begin the process you are first required to file a petition in any county court or in the Principal Registry in London. The petition is done in a standard format which will include details of your marriage and any children and also the reason for divorce. This is then submitted along with any other supporting documentation and possibly a court fee.
In certain cases the court fee is wavered. If you are receiving: income support, income-based jobseekers allowance, state pension guarantee credit or working tax credit with no child tax credit element this may be the case. Other reasons include your income been below a specified level or that payment would involve undue hardship.
Having received the correct forms the court will then issue the petition and it will be sent to your spouse. You are now the petitioner and your spouse is the respondent. At this point the respondent has eight days in which to return acknowledgment from the day after he/she receives the petition. Should the respondent live outside England and Wales they will be allowed a longer time period in which to return the acknowledgment.
The acknowledgment of service form that the respondent returns provides information from your spouse and will confirm whether or not he/she intends to contest the divorce. You as the petitioner are now required to file an affidavit to cover any legal technical elements and a formal request for divorce, known as a request for directions for trail.
Should the respondent decide to contest the divorce they need to provide the court with a copy of the defence within 21 days should you not receive a copy of this within the time period you can still go on to apply for directions for trail. If you do receive a copy of the answer your solicitor will advise you on when you can apply for directions of trail.
A judge will then consider all the paperwork to see if the case is suitable for divorce, this is a formality if the respondent has not contested the divorce as it is rare that a divorce request be rejected. Should the judge decide your case is not in order it may just be that extra information be required, however if the judge feels he/she cannot make a decision from paper evidence a court hearing may be necessary. The judge will certify that the case can proceed to decree nisi once he/she is happy which is pronounced in open court in order to allow six weeks for anyone to put forward a reason why the divorce should not proceed. After the six weeks have passed you can apply for a decree absolute.
http://www.solicitalawyer.co.uk/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jon_McTavy
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Commercial Property Law Specialist
Buying or leasing a commercial property today can become hassle free only when the buyer knows their property law well. Even they are not familiar with the latest news they need correct legal advice. Our commercial property department is experienced in dealing with commercial property transactions including sales, purchases, assignment of leases, purchases of businesses of going concern and sales and lease back transactions. We provide commercial property solicitors for various different sales. One can get expert advice only with a specialized property lawyer. For property transfer we provide a Conveyancing Solicitor too. At Duncun & Lewis we have been assisting landlords and their clients to run business in harmony without any litigation.
Normally, real estate agents in areas recommend commercial property solicitors who they know. They know the area and are knowledgeable about the laws concerning related properties. Many businesspersons try to reduce the hassles by trying to circumvent legal hassles by only relying on the brokers' advice. The title of the lease or plot has to be clear. But the right option is to engage commercial property solicitors for it. When you approach a commercial property solicitor at our firm they will take into account the compete details before any sale or purchase or any other transaction is made.
Too much emphasis is being given on the protection of the tenants now. A new code was introduced for leasing business premises in UK in March 2007. Sometimes lack of knowledge and not giving due importance to property lawyers can land businesses in trouble. For every negotiation, we make sure that property conveyancing is done easily, with able assistance from a conveyancing solicitor. A conveyance is a deed (legal document) that conveys a house from the vendor (seller) to the buyer, thereby transferring ownership. For transferring the property in the name of one person to another especially in business premises requires legal assistance. We take it to our credit that we have handled successfully, many such cases.
Consider a commercial property solicitor from our firm as an insurance policy against bad decisions. Property owners today do not want long-term tenants and this could mean that some tenants will protest. Tenants whose business depends on the volatile markets tend to take shorter legal routes. The lease term is important and we are aware of the technical issues faced by our clients. We charge reasonable fees but make sure you remain in business. This is our priority. If are looking for knowledgeable commercial property solicitors or conveyancing solicitors, log on to duncanlewis.co.uk. Find a wealth of information here apart from the best solicitors.
Sridhar is an experienced writer with expertise in Conveyancing Online, Conveyancing Quote and other House conveyancing.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sridhar_Duncanlewis
Normally, real estate agents in areas recommend commercial property solicitors who they know. They know the area and are knowledgeable about the laws concerning related properties. Many businesspersons try to reduce the hassles by trying to circumvent legal hassles by only relying on the brokers' advice. The title of the lease or plot has to be clear. But the right option is to engage commercial property solicitors for it. When you approach a commercial property solicitor at our firm they will take into account the compete details before any sale or purchase or any other transaction is made.
Too much emphasis is being given on the protection of the tenants now. A new code was introduced for leasing business premises in UK in March 2007. Sometimes lack of knowledge and not giving due importance to property lawyers can land businesses in trouble. For every negotiation, we make sure that property conveyancing is done easily, with able assistance from a conveyancing solicitor. A conveyance is a deed (legal document) that conveys a house from the vendor (seller) to the buyer, thereby transferring ownership. For transferring the property in the name of one person to another especially in business premises requires legal assistance. We take it to our credit that we have handled successfully, many such cases.
Consider a commercial property solicitor from our firm as an insurance policy against bad decisions. Property owners today do not want long-term tenants and this could mean that some tenants will protest. Tenants whose business depends on the volatile markets tend to take shorter legal routes. The lease term is important and we are aware of the technical issues faced by our clients. We charge reasonable fees but make sure you remain in business. This is our priority. If are looking for knowledgeable commercial property solicitors or conveyancing solicitors, log on to duncanlewis.co.uk. Find a wealth of information here apart from the best solicitors.
Sridhar is an experienced writer with expertise in Conveyancing Online, Conveyancing Quote and other House conveyancing.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sridhar_Duncanlewis
Commercial Law - Employment Law - Interpretation of Terms of Employment Contract
The case of Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and Others [2006], involved a dispute over what actions could be allowed under the terms of an employment contract. The claimant (“HISL”) produced and sold protective equipment. In 1993, it commissioned a new helmet design which was successfully marketed especially to the London Fire Brigade. The defendant was a senior salesman with the claimant.
Whilst in the claimant’s employment, the defendant had the idea for a new modular helmet. He believed that his employers were not interested in developing a new helmet, particularly on the European market, where he perceived there to be a gap for such a product to gain a foothold.
Between September 2001 and the 28th of February 2002, the defendant took a number of steps to advance his idea. He obtained some funding and arranged for product designers to prepare initial drawings of his concept. He handed in his notice of resignation on the 1st of February 2002 and worked until the end of his notice period until he left on the 28th of February.
The defendant incorporated Modular Helmet Systems Ltd (“MHSL”) two months after his departure from the claimant. Shortly thereafter, a rival company to HISL, Lion Apparel Inc (“Lion”) invested in a majority shareholding in MHSL. The claimant brought claims alleging that the defendant had acted in breach of his duty of fidelity in developing a safety helmet which would be in competition with HISL's safety helmet, and had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties in failing to report his activities while still under HISL's contract of employment.
Those claims were rejected by the judge in the patents county court. He determined that acts of preparation before departure were not actionable and that there was no breach of duty of good faith or fidelity on the part of the employee. He held that the employee was allowed to decide to set up a business in competition with his employer and that the preliminary steps taken to do so were permitted. He also concluded that there was no breach of any fiduciary duty because such an obligation had to be confined to his duty as a sales person.
The claimant appealed against this decision. On appeal the claimant relied on the fact that the defendant's printed contract of employment provided that it was his duty to advise his employer on the activities of competitors and their pricing structures. They argued that he was, therefore, under a duty to report such activities whether they were undertaken by a competitor or by himself as part of his plan to compete with his former employer.
The appeal was dismissed. It was held:
- Under the circumstances, although the defendant's activities would have amounted to competitor activity if undertaken by a competitor (and he therefore would have owed a fiduciary obligation not to misuse information about such activity for his own benefit or for the benefit of someone other than the claimant), it did not mean that he was under any obligation to inform HISL of his own activities.
- The words of the job specification did not restrict the defendant's freedom to prepare for competition on leaving. He was employed as a salesman not a designer and it was never in contemplation of either party that he would develop a helmet. Clear words were needed to restrict the ordinary freedom of an employee who was quitting his employment and setting up in competition to his former employer, which the defendant's job specification did not do.
- He was under no relevant fiduciary duty to the claimant. The defendant owed no fiduciary obligations in relation to the development of a preliminary concept for a new helmet. Therefore he was not in breach of any such obligation by seeking to raise funds for such a project while still in employment. The defendant was working on his idea in his own time and as a result the concept developed belonged to him.
Please contact us for more information on assessing damages due under termination of a contract at enquiries@rtcoopers.com
Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_corporatecommercial.php
Whilst in the claimant’s employment, the defendant had the idea for a new modular helmet. He believed that his employers were not interested in developing a new helmet, particularly on the European market, where he perceived there to be a gap for such a product to gain a foothold.
Between September 2001 and the 28th of February 2002, the defendant took a number of steps to advance his idea. He obtained some funding and arranged for product designers to prepare initial drawings of his concept. He handed in his notice of resignation on the 1st of February 2002 and worked until the end of his notice period until he left on the 28th of February.
The defendant incorporated Modular Helmet Systems Ltd (“MHSL”) two months after his departure from the claimant. Shortly thereafter, a rival company to HISL, Lion Apparel Inc (“Lion”) invested in a majority shareholding in MHSL. The claimant brought claims alleging that the defendant had acted in breach of his duty of fidelity in developing a safety helmet which would be in competition with HISL's safety helmet, and had acted in breach of his fiduciary duties in failing to report his activities while still under HISL's contract of employment.
Those claims were rejected by the judge in the patents county court. He determined that acts of preparation before departure were not actionable and that there was no breach of duty of good faith or fidelity on the part of the employee. He held that the employee was allowed to decide to set up a business in competition with his employer and that the preliminary steps taken to do so were permitted. He also concluded that there was no breach of any fiduciary duty because such an obligation had to be confined to his duty as a sales person.
The claimant appealed against this decision. On appeal the claimant relied on the fact that the defendant's printed contract of employment provided that it was his duty to advise his employer on the activities of competitors and their pricing structures. They argued that he was, therefore, under a duty to report such activities whether they were undertaken by a competitor or by himself as part of his plan to compete with his former employer.
The appeal was dismissed. It was held:
- Under the circumstances, although the defendant's activities would have amounted to competitor activity if undertaken by a competitor (and he therefore would have owed a fiduciary obligation not to misuse information about such activity for his own benefit or for the benefit of someone other than the claimant), it did not mean that he was under any obligation to inform HISL of his own activities.
- The words of the job specification did not restrict the defendant's freedom to prepare for competition on leaving. He was employed as a salesman not a designer and it was never in contemplation of either party that he would develop a helmet. Clear words were needed to restrict the ordinary freedom of an employee who was quitting his employment and setting up in competition to his former employer, which the defendant's job specification did not do.
- He was under no relevant fiduciary duty to the claimant. The defendant owed no fiduciary obligations in relation to the development of a preliminary concept for a new helmet. Therefore he was not in breach of any such obligation by seeking to raise funds for such a project while still in employment. The defendant was working on his idea in his own time and as a result the concept developed belonged to him.
Please contact us for more information on assessing damages due under termination of a contract at enquiries@rtcoopers.com
Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_corporatecommercial.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
