Latest News

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Claire Hook (2010)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Claire Hook (2010) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers .  Claire will be joining our Family and Civil teams .

Claire joined Chambers following the successful completion of her pupillage in October 2017. Claire enjoys a mixed common law practice. Prior to pupillage, Claire worked for an insurance company in fleet motor claims and as a public liability claims handler before becoming a Solicitor Agent dealing with civil and commercial litigation, including consumer credit, personal injury and housing matters. Her family practice includes private and public child law as well as applications for injunctive relief and ancillary relief matters.

Claire Hook

No.18 Barristers Chambers Jointly Sponsor The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives Bournemouth and District Branch 86th Annual Dinner

No.18 Barristers Chambers are delighted announce we are supporting The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives Bournemouth and District Branch 82nd Annual Dinner on the 8th December 2017. For more details please see www.badcilex.org.uk.

No.18 Barristers Chambers Jointly Sponsor Ridge Runner OCR

No.18 Barristers Chambers are delighted announce we are supporting Ridge Runner OCR. Ridge Runner made its debut on the 1st and 2nd October 2016. It is an exciting, muddy and challenging 10km cross country obstacle race taking part on Saturday 30th September 2017 at the Broadlands Estate in Romsey. Over 500 runners will be braving the course to face a range of obstacles including climbing walls and fences, jumping lily pads across a lake, monkey bars, water and mud pits and many more including the challenge of the half pipe! They have Dared to Accept the Challenge and embrace the fun and mud

Please check out their website www.ridge-runner.co.uk or their Facebook page for more info https://www.facebook.com/ridgerunnerocr

Tracey Hennessey interviewed on UK Talk Radio

On Thursday 28th September Tracey Hennessey is to appear on UK Talk Radio speaking about Chambers, the legal industry and the ever evolving role of Barristers. To hear the interview, please click on the attached link.

Tracey Hennessey

Katherine Henry (2008) is published in family affairs with article on speaking at to speak at the World Congress on Family Law and Children Rights

Following  Katherine Henry (2008) speaking at the World Congress on Family Law and Children Rights in Dublin in June 2017, we are delighted to announce that she has been published in family affairs writing on her experience

If you have any questions or queries surrounding Katherine’s Practice or Chambers and the we undertake please do not hesitate to contact  Mark Windebank (Senior  Clerk) or Rebecca Brown (Junior Clerk) on 023 80 736812 or contact us at clerks@no18chambers.com

Katherine Henry

Barney Large published in Daniel Barnett’s Employment Bulletin:

No.18 are delighted to announce that Barney Large has been published in Daniel Barnett Employment Bulletin discussing  Can Claimants doing different work bring equal pay claims on the same ET1 claim form? To read the full article please click here 

Barnaby Large

No.18 Chambers Appoints new Head of Chambers

No.18 is delighted to announce  the appointment of our Head of Chambers Tracey Hennessey. After years of dedicated service as Head Of Chambers, Ashley Ailes is standing down. He remains a valued member of chambers, continuing to practice. On behalf of all members, the new Head of Chambers offers Ashley sincere thanks for his unfailing commitment, leadership and hard work throughout the years

Tracey Hennessey

NEWS FLASH : The blame game…is it time to move to no fault divorce

In Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182 the Court of Appeal has refused a wife’s appeal on the grounds of her husband's unreasonable behaviour.

The parties married in 1978 and separated in 2015. They had two children. The wife petitioned for divorce on the grounds that the marriage had broken down and that her husband "has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]” (paragraph 1). The husband contested her application.

Sitting in the Central Family Court, His Honour Judge Tolson QC considered “"that the allegations of alleged unreasonable behaviour in this petition – all of them – are at best flimsy. I would not have found unreasonable behaviour on the wife's pleaded case. As it is, having heard both parties give evidence, I am satisfied that the wife has exaggerated the context and seriousness of the allegations to a significant extent. They are all at most minor altercations of a kind to be expected in a marriage. Some are not even that” (paragraph 46). The wife appealed.

The matter came before Sir James Munby, Lady Justice Hallett and Lady Justice Macur. The President stated that “Mr. Marshall complains that the effect of Judge Tolson's judgment is to leave the wife in a wretched predicament, feeling, as she put it in her witness statement, unloved, isolated and alone, and locked into a loveless and desperately unhappy marriage which, as the judge correctly found, has, in fact if not in law, irretrievably broken down” (paragraph 83).

However despite such marriage, the wife’s appeal was refused. The President considered that “the simple fact, to speak plainly, is that in this respect the law which the judges have to apply and the procedures which they have to follow are based on hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty. The simple fact is that we have, and have for many years had, divorce by consent, not merely in accordance with section 1(2)(d) of the 1969 Act but, for those unwilling or unable to wait for two years, by means of a consensual, collusive, manipulation of section 1(2)(b). It is ironic that collusion, which until the doctrine was abolished by section 9 of the 1969 Act was a bar to a decree, is now the very foundation of countless petitions and decrees” (paragraph 94).

Lady Justice Hallett confirmed that she had come to the conclusion “with no enthusiasm whatsoever” (paragraph 99) and urged “the husband to reconsider his position. On any view, the marriage is over. I can only hope that he will relent and consent to a divorce on the grounds the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of two years, rather than force his wife to wait until five years have elapsed” (paragraph 102).

 It remains to be seen whether the case will progress to the Supreme Court. However, the decision has clearly raised the question of a change in the law and whether it reflects modern day realities.

Has the time now come for Parliament to end the blame game?

Katherine Henry

Barney Large published in Daniel Barnett’s Employment Bulletin:

No.18 are delighted to announce that Barney Large has been published in Daniel Barnett Employment Bulletin discussing  Can a Claimant successfully claim harassment by simply asserting s/he has a disability without establishing s/he is disabled under the Equality Act 2010? To read the full article please click here 

Barnaby Large

Legal Walk for third year running - Please donate...

No.18 are proud to announce that for a third year running we are walking in the Southampton Legal (10 km) Walk on Monday 8th May leaving at 5:30pm starting from Southampton Combined Court Centre, London Road.

What is the walk?

The walk is an amazing opportunity to raise much needed funds for access to justice all whilst exploring the vibrant city of Southampton.

The Southampton Legal Walk has a fantastic community  feel and we hope to  see lots of others from the judiciary, law firms,, government departments, in-house legal teams - their friends, family and even a few dogs!

Why we walk

The work of the South West Legal Support Trust is now, more than ever, vitally important to ensuring access to justice for all remains possible. By joining this fundraising event we will be supporting some of the most vulnerable members of your local community by raising money for much needed advice and support.

How you can help

By clicking on the below  link and donating whatever you can

https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/nobarristerschambersteam

Hope to see you along the route..

No.18 Chambers delighted to open London consulting room

No18 is delighted to announce that we have opened a consulting room based in London in order to facilitate meetings for our ever increasing city clients. All correspondence/DX or Post should still be sent to Rownhams House, Rownhams, Southampton, SO16 8LS DX: 96877 Southampton 10 . For more details, please contact our clerks on 02380 736812 /0207 872 5412 or email clerks@no18chambers .com

STOP PRESS: Self Employed Cyclist Runs Rings Round Courier Companies.....

The Central London Employment Tribunal has given judgment in the case of Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Limited in the next decision what may soon be a gargantuan overhaul of the gig-economy.

The case follows closely on the heels of Aslam & Ors v Uber B.V. & Ors in October of last year and sheds a greater light on the impact of contracts which do not reflect the realities of parties working relationships.

CitySprint engages around 3,500 cyclist couriers in the United Kingdom responsible for its courier service. The Company drew up contracts titled “Confirmation of Tender to Supply Courier Services to Citysprint Ltd” which defined these individuals as self-employed contractors.

The courier contracts were signed at the Company’s offices and required those couriers engaged under them to acknowledge key terms making clear the Company was under no obligation to provide work, that couriers could send a substitute to work in their place (if they fulfilled CitySprint’s criteria), that couriers were paid by the job and that if couriers were not working they would not be paid. Importantly couriers were required to acknowledge they were not entitled to maternity, holiday or sick pay.

Ms Dewhurst was one such cyclist, engaged by CitySprint to work in London. She worked approximately four days a week from 9.30am until 6.30pm during which time she would travel between the Company’s clients delivering items with gaps typically of between ten minutes and one hour, with a schedule confirmed by the Company’s controller that morning.

Ms Dewhurst remaining in constant contact throughout the day, receiving updating directions from the Company’s controller throughout the day.

Employment Judge Wage, finding Ms Dewhurst to be a worker for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, determined that the contractual arrangements did not reflect the realities of the parties’ arrangements (in doing so applying Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41)

What was interesting about the case was not so much the application of Autoclenz but the Judge’s assessment of the substitution clause in the CitySprint’s contracts. In reality, despite its wording, the clause did little more than allow couriers already engaged by the Company to sway shifts.

The Judge reflected on the fact that the acknowledgements and contracts were concluded at CitySprint’s place of work, which with other findings led her to conclude there was an inequality of bargaining power. 

Whilst the case is a first instance decision and not binding, it is likely to guide employment practitioners as they advise and represent clients in this progressing area of law. 

Barnaby Large

Merry Christmas from No18 Chambers

Merry Christmas from all at No 18 Barristers Chambers

xmas2016

News Flash : Katherine Henry (2008) is invited to speak at the World Congress on Family Law and Children Rights

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Katherine Henry (2008) has been invited to speak at the World Congress on Family Law and Children Rights in Dublin next year. 

The conference will be taking place from 4th to 7th June 2017. The World Congress was launched in Sydney, Australia and meets every four years. Katherine will be attending the event and will be presenting in Speaker's Corner with the title: Access to Justice: Myth or Reality?

Katherine Henry ( 2008 ) has a diverse family practice with a keen interest in cases involving children. Katherine has extensive experience in private law matters with a focus on vulnerable clients and domestic violence issues. She takes a client focused approach when dealing with her caseload, providing helpful advice to those that instruct her. In relation to public law matters, Katherine works hard to ensure a strong client relationship, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues.

If you have any questions or queriessurrounding Katherine’s Practice or Chambers and the we undertake please do not hesitate to contact  Mark Windebank (Senior  Clerk) or Rebecca Brown (Junior Clerk) on 023 80 736812 or contact us at clerks@no18chambers.com

Katherine Henry

No.18 Barristers Chambers are excited to announce sponsorship of Trojans R.F.C

No.18 are excited to announce we have sponsored Trojans R.F.C 3rd team together with a pitch side board on the 1st team pitch. We are also delighted to offer a 10% discount on fee’s to friends and family of Trojans R.F.C. For more information with regards to Trojans and the other corporate sponsors please  go to www.trojansrugby.co.uk/

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Robin Shane (2010)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Robin Shane (2010) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers .  Robin will be joining our Family, Immigration & Property teams .

Robin was called to the Bar in 2010. He is a former Royal Marine and served on operations around the world. He later became a police officer with the Thames Valley police, which sparked his interest in law. He graduated from Oxford Brookes University with a First Class Honours Degree (LLB), achieving the highest degree classification of his academic year.

Robin joined Chambers in 2012. However, he also has extensive litigation experience having recently practiced in-house with a prominent firm of solicitors.

He brings a depth of life experience to his practice. He is able to offer exceptional client care, combined with pragmatism and sound legal judgement.

Robin Shane

No.18 Barristers Chambers gains Recognition in the annual Legal 500 rankings

No.18 Barrister Chambers are delighted to have  gained recognition in the annual Legal 500 rankings. The Legal 500 assesses law firms throughout the country and this year No.18 Barristers Chambers have been named  as one of the recommended sets on the Western Circuit  for Family, Employment and Personal Injury. Further, three barristers individually acknowledged in the "Leading juniors" list for their work in Family law & Children and Employment.

Legal 500 Overview:

The ‘very professional’ members of No.18 Barristers Chambers are ‘very good at what they do’. The set is recommended for family, personal injury and employment work, amongst other areas, and a number of Court of Appeal cases feature in chambers’ recent workload. On the family side, children law cases are the mainstay of the practice, although the set is home to experts in financial remedy and international children matters. ‘The clerking team communicates very well’, and senior clerk Mark Windebank is ‘excellent at finding the best barrister for the case in hand’.

Family and children law : (Western Circuit - Leading juniors)

'The family team  has a number of Court of Appeal cases feature in chambers’ recent workload’... ‘ children law cases are the mainstay of the practice, although the set is home to experts in financial remedy and international children matters’.


Lee Young  (1991) ‘A reliable barrister, who gets results’.

With over 20 year of experience of public law proceedings Lee is regularly instructed by local authorities, parents, intervenors, extended family members  and by solicitors acting for children in a wide range of complex and demanding cases . Lee is experienced in cases involving serious non-accidental injuries, sexual and physical abuse, neglect, complex expert and medical evidence.

He also has a wealth of expertise in cases with international elements such as moving children across international borders, ‘miracle baby’ cases, sexual abuse, severe neglect and mental health issues of a psychiatric and psychological nature.

Nigel Cholerton (2007) (admitted as Solicitor 2004)  ‘He thinks outside the box and has a real passion for the work he undertakes.’

Nigel is an established Family Practitioner with significant experience in care proceedings.  He is regularly instructed to attend emergency protection orders, interim care orders and multi-day complex findings of fact and final hearings with cases involving sensitive sexual abuse or non-accidental injury.  Nigel appears for parents, guardians, Local Authorities and Intevenors.

Employment : (Western Circuit - Leading juniors)

Ian Wheaton (2002) ‘A strong advocate, who is quick on his feet and robust with opponents.’
Ian has practised in the Employment Tribunals since 1996 representing clients firstly as a lay representative and then as a barrister since 2002. He has dealt with  the full range of dismissal, discrimination and breach of contract cases that appear before the Tribunals. He has had notable successes in equal pay matters and sex discrimination cases. He is known for robust trial advocacy and common sense advice to clients. and developed a speciality in whistleblowing claims.

Ian’s employment practice sees him represent both employers and employees, primarily in “whistleblowing” claims involving disclosures made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 in addition to the usual range of tribunal claims such as unfair dismissal constructive dismissal and discrimination claims.

In his most recently reported cases, Co-operative Limited v Baddeley [2013] All ER (D) 333 (Jul) and [2014] EWCA Civ 658 Ian represented an employee in the Employment Tribunal, then that the Employment Appeal Tribunal and then again in the Court of Appeal, (opposed by Mr Bruce Carr QC in the EAT and CA) where it was remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal in a case involving potential lifetime losses consequent upon dismissal for making alleged protected disclosures.

Ian Wheaton, Lee Young, Nigel Cholerton

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Sarah Hirech (2012)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Sarah Hirech (2012) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers. Sarah will be joining our Family, Immigration  Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence, Employment& Property teams .

Sarah became a Tenant in August 2015 after completing her pupillage with Chambers. Prior to pupillage Sarah worked for a year as Assistant Private Secretary to the Advocate General for Scotland in Whitehall. Sarah was called to the Bar in July 2012, after completing a first degree in Applied Business Management at Imperial College London, converting to law and completing the BPTC, obtaining a grade of “Very Competent”. Following the BPTC, Sarah worked for 18 months as a Home Office Presenting Officer in the First Tier Immigration Tribunal, presenting a wide range of immigration cases on behalf of the Respondent.

For more information on her practice please see her individual profile.

Sarah Hirech

Stop Press: The Employment Implications (or Lack Thereof) of Abuse of Migrant Workers

On 22nd June 2016 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale with Lords Wilson, Reed, Hughes and Toulson) handed down probably one of the most significant decisions on the limits of the application of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 addressing discrimination.

Taiwo v Olaigbe and another; Onu v Akwiwu and another[2016] UKSC 31;  [2016] 1 WLR 2653; [2016] All ER (D) 134 (Jun) on 22nd June 2016 confirms less favourable treatment of a person on the grounds of their status as a vulnerable migrant worker is potentially many things (an actionable tort, a crime or breach of contract) but it is not unlawful discrimination.

The background to the case may be summarised as follows – Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu were Nigerian nationals who travelled to the United Kingdom on domestic migrant visas. Ms Taiwo had entered the country in 2010 with a migrant domestic worker’s visa obtained by her employers, Mr and Mrs Olaigbe. However, it later transpired Mr and Mrs Olaigbe had manufactured her employment history and her contract of employment to secure her passage. On arrival her passport was taken from her. She was required to work in excess of her Working Time Regulations 1999 safeguards without rest breaks provided for by the same. She was paid far less than the National Minimum Wage, sustained huge weight loss from lack of food, was insulted, was slapped and spat at.

Ms Onu’s circumstances were strikingly similar. A Nigerian National, she entered the UK in July 2008 on a domestic worker’s visa obtained by Mr and Mrs Akwiwu who also supplied false information to the UK authorities. Her passport was taken on arrival and she was provided with a contract which threatened referral to the Police and immigration authorities should she abscond within a year. She received no employment particulars and worked an average of 84 hours a week without her Working Time Regulations rest breaks and was paid vastly less than minimum wage. She was repeatedly threatened by her employers until she fled in June 2010.

Both Tribunal Judges made numerous awards in respect of wages and failure to provide employment particulars, with Ms Onu also receiving an award for holiday pay and unfair dismissal and Ms Taiwo receiving an award for failure to provide rest breaks. Both Tribunal’s found as fact that Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu had been mistreated on the ground of their precarious immigration statuses. But, whilst Ms Onu’s claims for discrimination and harassment on grounds of race succeeded on the basis of “a clear link” to her race, Ms Taiwo’s claims for indirect and direct race discrimination were dismissed.

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision in Ms Taiwo’s case and overturned Ms Onu’s discrimination and harassment claims finding her treatment was not inherently bound up in her race but rather her subordinate position as a migrant worker.

The Court of Appeal heard both cases together. In short they found that immigration status could not be equated with nationality for the purposes of either the Race Relations or Equality Acts and mistreatment of migrant workers was not a provision criterion or practice.

The Supreme Court was asked, in respect of direct discrimination only, to resolve the sole question of ‘Whether less favourable treatment of an individual on grounds of their precarious immigration status amounts to race discrimination, specifically nationality?’

On behalf of Ms Taiwo and Ms Onu it was submitted that British nationals have a right of above which cannot be denied. All non-British nationals are potentially subject to immigration control.

Under other legislation including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 as well as the UK Boarder Agency’s Code of Practice, nationality had been extended to include immigration status and ‘being foreign’.

The Supreme Court sympathised greatly with the Claimants but felt bound to interpret the Equality and Race Relations Acts as self-contained independent statutes unfettered by other legislation or codes of practice. Parliament could have chosen to include immigration status but did not.

The Court was in no doubt that had British Nationals been employed, they would not have been treated so badly. The reason for Ms Onu and Ms Taiwo’s treatment was their nationality but, as demonstrated on the Employers’ behalf, this had nothing to do with the fact they were Nigerian. This dispensed with the direct discrimination claims.

The impact of the decision is a disappointing one (even in the eyes of the Supreme Court Judges dealing with the case) but a timely reminder of the limits of judicial interpretation and the self-contained nature of the Equality Act is a piece of legislation.

Few would disagree that Ms Twaiwo and Ms Onu required recompense for the wrongs afforded to them but it is now clear that, for the time being at least, the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal does not offer that recourse.

No doubt the Government will consider whether, at a time when immigration and asylum are topics at the forefront of minds spanning the whole political spectrum, amendment of the legislation is necessary to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. Indeed, with the impending exit from the European Union, mistreatment on grounds of immigration status will become even more far reaching and provides an unfair technical defence to many unscrupulous employers.

Stop Press: The importance of sibling relationships

In Re N (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 656, the Court of Appeal allowed a brother to apply for contact for his sister in foster care.

The sister was subject to care proceedings. Both children had been trafficked into the UK. The brother was having limited contact with his sister in the community. The question was whether contact should be unsupervised. The view of the Local Authority and Guardian was that this could take place in the future. However, the brother sought unsupervised contact to take place immediately.

The issue arose as to whether the brother should have been given permission by the court to make an application within the care proceedings for contact with his sister. The brother’s application was refused on the basis that the issue was narrow and the court would consider contact overall when making its final decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal stating that the brother was entitled to be heard. In the lead judgment Lord Justice MacFarlane said ‘’ This was not an unimportant issue.  Whilst there was some acceptance of the principle of contact, the way it could go forward and indeed the very plan for S at that time in terms of her long-term care had not been settled.  Her brother is, on my understanding of the case, likely to be the most important person in S's life.  He has a view about contact and a view as to what contact is best for S”.

Of importance to the court, was the relationship between the siblings. Four grounds were submitted on behalf of the brother, all of which were accepted. The court stated “…standing back from those grounds, the big point is that this decision about contact between this young man and his 16-year old sister is important.  It may be one of the most important features, looking to the future, for young S.  The relationship with her brother and the ability to rekindle that relationship, it having been put in abeyance for some three or four years, is plainly important both now but, more significantly, for the future.  It will be but a moment before she is an adult and out in the community herself.  She is likely to need a real, live, ongoing, ordinary relationship with her brother.  That is what he wishes to achieve” (paragraph 26).

The case reiterates the importance of family relationships and the need to hear fully any arguments on contact in proceedings.

Katherine Henry

Twelve Month Pupillage

Chambers are now accepting applications for a single twelve month pupillage starting 2nd October 2017. All applications should be made in writing and enclosing a current CV to Barnaby Large. Chambers looks to nurture pupils into tenants to maintain our long established efficient and excellent practice on the Western Circuit. We have two stages to our assessment process - written application followed by second round which is an interview.

Pupillage with No.18 is a fantastic exposure to a broad spectrum of Chambers’ work. Our pupil will be adequately financially supported throughout their first six months, with opportunities to shadow and assist all tenants with their work flow.

Following satisfactory completion of their first six months pupillage, our pupil will be able to undertake their own instructions for which they will be supported by their second six pupillage supervisor and also by the Members of collegiate.

In addition, we are now required by the Bar Standards Board to undertake equality and diversity monitoring in respect of all pupillage applications.

The closing date for applications is the 10th June 2016. Any applications received after that date will not be considered."

No.18 receives Bronze Award from Armed Forces Covenant Employer Recognition Scheme

No.18 is delighted to annouce that we have recieved the the bronze award from the Armed Forces Covenant Employer Recognition Scheme. This award recognsies  the No.18’s pledge to offer a 10% discount  to service personnal for any litigtaion

Helen Nugent (2007) to speak at APIL Annual conference

No.18  are delighted to announce that Helen Nugent, Secretary of the APIL Barristers’ Group, will be speaking at the APIL Annual conference (4th May 2016) on: Working with Counsel.

Helen Nugent

Helen Nugent published in the International Family Law Journal

No.18  are delighted to announce that Helen Nugent has been published along side Carolina Marin Pedreno of Dawson Cornwall Solicitors in International Family Law Journal on their article on “ Legislating against Domestic Violence in Brazil”. Please click on the attached link to read article.

Helen Nugent

No.18’s Pen Competition

As many of your will know we have just had a delivery of  No.18 pens. Some of you have already requested these and might have already received them. If you haven’t received a No.18 pen and wish to enter the competition to win a bottle of bubbly please post on social media (facebook/linkedin/twitter)) and we’ll get a pen sent to you

The rules:

  1. The picture must be legal related in some way (and appropriate )
  2. Must clearly show pen and logo
  3. Your are only allowed to submit 3 attempts
  4. It must be posted on at least two of the three social media sites (facebook/linkedin/twitter)
  5. You must tag No.18 chambers in
  6. The deadline for submission will the 29th April

Happy Snapping

No.18 proud to be walking in the Southampton Legal Walk for second year running - Please donate...

No.18 are proud to announce that for a second year running we are walking in the Southampton Legal (10 km) Walk on Monday 9 May leaving at 5:30pm starting from Southampton Combined Court Centre, London Road.

What is the walk?

The walk is an amazing opportunity to raise much needed funds for access to justice all whilst exploring the vibrant city of Southampton.

The Southampton Legal Walk has a fantastic community  feel and we hope to  see lots of others from the judiciary, law firms,, government departments, in-house legal teams - their friends, family and even a few dogs!

Why we walk

The work of the South West Legal Support Trust is now, more than ever, vitally important to ensuring access to justice for all remains possible. By joining this fundraising event we arel be supporting some of the most vulnerable members of your local community by raising money for much needed advice and support.

How you can help

By clicking on the below  link and donating whatever you can

mydonate.bt.com

Hope to see you along the route..

The No.18 Approach to Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence

In the post-Jackson climate, barristers at No.18 Chambers recognise the various challenges to providing high quality legal services for clients.  We are committed to delivering an exceptional level of advice (whether in writing or in conference), representation and resolution.  Providing a high quality service is central to our ethos: 'committed to our clients’; ‘serious about service’ and ‘always fair on fees’.  

Irrespective of the value or complexity of a claim, we aim to provide a high quality service, with excellent, specialist, tailored advice.

In order to facilitate this No.18 are delighted to introduce seven new schemes:

  • CFAs with a 0% success fee on all PI and Clinical Negligence claims (subject to risk assessment)
  • No Win Low Fee agreements
  • Package Deals
  • Meet the insurance
  • Armed & Police Forces Discount
  • Low income ‘tailored fees’
  • The Advice, Pleading and Support Package

Committed to 0% Success fee on all PI and Clinical Negligence Case

At No.18 we recognise that post Jackson, any success that is claimed by counsel has to come out of the client damages. Committed to maximizing the clients damages No.18 are delighted to commit to a 0% success fee on post-April 2013 CFAs

No Win Low Fee Agreements:

Where a case is not suitable to take under a traditional CFA, No.18 Strives to offer a feasible alternative in order to make Litigation available to those who would otherwise not be able afford it. Individually calculated on a case to case basis Members undertake work in appropriate cases offering No Win, Low Fee. Not all cases are appropriate for No Win Low Fee Agreements and the barrister concerned may decline to enter into a CFA after considering the merits of the claim/prospects of success.  Chambers has a flexible policy on CFAs and will do our best to tailor the agreement to the needs of the case. Our standard arrangements are based on the latest models provided by the Bar Standards Board and specialist bar associations

Package Deals:

No.18 are able to offer fee packages in relation to written advisory work, drafting, conferences & litigation (for example a global fee for both a Conference and hearing or drafting and a hearing).

Meet the Insurance:

Where the matter is insurance backed, No.18 will do our utmost to work within the rates agreed with each insurance company and where there are agreed rates (either hourly or fixed) between another Chambers and that insurance firm we will also do our best to match the fees.  We are able to do both in most cases.

Armed  & Police Forces Discount:

We are delighted to  offer reduced fees ((for matters that are paid privately ) for members of the Armed & Police Forces and their dependants, please contact us for more information on our 10% discount for Armed Forces personnel and their dependants

Low income “ tailored fee’s:

We recognise that the economic pressures on some clients require flexibility on fees in order to ensure that they can secure access to high quality legal representation.  We can in most instances provide tailored fees for clients on a low income or who would previously have been eligible for legal aid to assist.

The Advice, Pleading and Support Package

No.18  are delighted to  offer our new Advice, Pleading and Support package to clients in Small Claims  and Fast Track cases where costs are fixed in accordance with the provisions of the CPR: please see below for our table of fees that we offer to do so at a fixed price

Our Barristers will provide at your request:

  • Advice on liability, quantum and evidence;
  • Pleadings;
  • Telephone or (if needed) face to face conference with solicitor and client;
  • Assistance with ad hoc queries by phone or email where reasonably required.

Road Traffic Claims :

Item of Work £1,000 - £10,000 / £10,000 - £25,000

Advice on Liability or Quantum £150 / £225

Advice on Liability and Quantum £200 / £300

Particulars of Claim £150 / £200

Defence/Reply/Part 18 Request £125 / £200

Employer’s Liabilty/Public Liabilty:

Item of Work £1,000 - £10,000 / £10,000 - £25,000

Advice on Liability or Quantum £175 / £250

Advice on Liability and Quantum £225 / £325

Particulars of Claim £200 / £225

Defence/Reply/Part 18 Request £150 / £200
                
We will continue to provide you with outstanding representation for your clients across all areas and at all levels of personal injury and clinical negligence work.          

If you have any questions or queries surrounding these schemes,  chambers, its services or the work we undertake please do not hesitate to contact our friendly and efficient administrative team, either Mark Windebank (Senior  Clerk) or Laura Jackson (Junior Clerk) on 023 80 736812 or contact us at clerks@no18chambers.com


T&Cs for the Package

  1. The package is only available where recoverable legal costs are fixed in the CPR in RTA/EL/PL fast track cases.
    A minimum fee of £150 (plus VAT) will apply.
  2. 3Trial fees are currently allowed as a disbursement under both the Portal and Fast Track Fixed Costs Schemes so we will continue to offer our services in court for trials and interlocutory hearings separately at CPR recoverable rates.
  3. The package is available as a CFA.
  4. Barristers will only do barrister style work as permitted by the Bar Code of Conduct.
  5. Instructing solicitors will provide only the papers necessary for counsel to do the work not the whole file, (e.g. for an Advice on Quantum just the medical report, witness statements/proofs, draft Schedule and relevant supporting documents). In lower value cases the advices may all be in one document rather than separate.
  6. The way in which written advices are provided may be by e-mail, in writing or by fax and will not necessarily be in a formal written and printed advice.
  7. Pleadings will generally be provided by e-mail.
  8. Instructions may be sent to barristers on paper or in electronic format.
  9. If the case exits the Fast Track fixed recoverable costs scheme then normal hourly rates will apply to all work done by the barrister

No.18 Chambers - Fee Structures & Costs

No 18 recognises the need to be fair, flexible, transparent and competitive and we strive to offer premium legal services at competitive prices. Our clerks are always ready to discuss fee structures to meet the client’s budget. Fees are calculated on an individual case basis, taking into account the seniority and experience of the barrister, complexity of the case and the length of time involved in preparation and attending court.

Following the Jackson Reforms, the legal aid cuts and the introduction of issue fees in the Employment Tribunal many clients may be left without legal representation. As part of our commitment to you and your clients, No.18 Chambers have put together  fee structures and payment options  for every eventuality, whether  you act for a company or a client with a lower income.

No.18 Chambers recognise how specialist advice and advocacy are essential in circumstances that can often be unnerving and time consuming for the client.  We as a Chambers are committed to working  with you , the client and the firm  as part of your  team to provide a package of high quality legal advice, professional advisory services and first-rate advocacy.

Whether it’s a Family, Employment, Chancery & Commercial, Immigration, Property , Personal Injury or Clinical Negligence  case chambers can offer a fee package to meet both your and the clients budget, and we are more than happy to try and tailor our fees  to fit. Chambers are able to offer fixed fee’s  with no surprise’s or hidden  extra cost giving your client certainty.

Members undertake work under a variety of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and in appropriate cases offer 0% success fee. Not all cases are appropriate for CFAs and the barrister concerned may decline to enter into a CFA after considering the merits of the claim/prospects of success.  Chambers has a flexible policy on CFAs and will do our best to tailor the agreement to the needs of the case. Our standard arrangements are based on the latest models provided by the Bar Standards Board and specialist bar associations.


Your Fees Structures:

Fair  on Fee’s: Fees Tailored for you and your client:

We as a chambers can offer various fee packages to meet both yours and the clients budget, and we are more than happy to try and tailor our fees  to fit. We aim to remain open, transparent flexible and most importantly approachable. Fee’s are calculated on an individual case basis, taking into account the seniority and experience of the barrister, complexity of the case, any relevant value and the length of time involved in preparation and attending court. Where possible a fixed price for litigation, advisory work and/or drafting can be agreed in advance, providing certainty and assisting the client to budget.

Private Fee Hourly Rates

Fees are calculated on an individual case basis, taking into account the seniority and experience of the barrister, complexity and any relevant value.   

Fixed Fees:

In many cases we are happy to agree a fixed fee for an individual items of work providing certainty to the lay client.  

Maximum Fees:

In many cases we are happy to agree a maximum for an individual items of work i.e. : to ‘cap’ the fee agreed to a ‘maximum fee’ so the client is 100 % of his liability in relation to  fee’s.

Package Deals:

We are able to offer fee packages in relation to written advisory work, drafting, conferences and representation (for example, a global fee for both a conference and hearing or drafting and a hearing).

Meet the Insurance:

Where the matter is insurance backed, we will do our utmost to work within the rates agreed with each insurance company. Where there are agreed rates (either hourly or fixed) between another Chambers and that insurance firm, we will also do our best to match those fees

Armed  & Police Forces Discount:

We are delighted to  offer reduced fees ((for matters that are paid privately ) for members of the Armed & Police Forces and their dependants, please contact us for more information on our 10% discount for Armed Forces personnel and their dependants

Low Income ‘ tailored fee’:

We recognise the economic pressures on some clients that would require flexibility on fees in order to ensure that they can secure access to high quality legal representation.  We can therefore in most instances provide tailored fees for clients on low income or who would previously have been eligible for legal aid.

Conditional Fee agreement: (0% Success Guaranteed)

Members undertake work under a variety of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and in appropriate cases offer 0% success fee. Not all cases are appropriate for CFAs and the barrister concerned may decline to enter into a CFA after considering the merits of the claim/prospects of success.  Chambers has a flexible policy on CFAs and will do our best to tailor the agreement to the needs of the case. Our standard arrangements are based on the latest models provided by the Bar Standards Board and specialist bar associations.

No Win Low Fee Agreements:

Where a case is not suitable to take under a traditional CFA, No.18 Strives to offer a feasible alternative in order to make Litigation available to those who would otherwise not be able afford it. Individually calculated on a case to case basis Members undertake work in appropriate cases offering No Win, Low Fee. Not all cases are appropriate for No Win Low Fee Agreements and the barrister concerned may decline to enter into a CFA after considering the merits of the claim/prospects of success.  Chambers has a flexible policy on CFAs and will do our best to tailor the agreement to the needs of the case. Our standard arrangements are based on the latest models provided by the Bar Standards Board and specialist bar associations.

Damage Based Agreements:

At No.18 we recognise that, following the introduction of issue fees in employment cases, new methods of funding need to be found in order to bring claims. No.18 are delighted to offer damaged based agreements as a solution. We are committed to assess cases as to whether Damages Based Agreements are an appropriate recourse of funding for a particular lay client in order to allow them to purse their claim

Legal Aid:

Chambers continues to be committed to undertaking legally aided work and providing the best quality representation to all those who require it.  


Terms and Conditions:

As of 31st January 2013, due to changes in the Bar Code of Conduct and the introduction of the Standard Conditions of Contract for the Supply of Legal Services by Barristers to Authorised Persons 2012, all members of Chambers are willing to accept instructions on ;

  • The Bar Council Standard Contractual Terms
  • COMBAR basis A

Unless any preference is expressed at the time of booking, the booking will be accepted subject to Chambers’ Standard Contractual Terms.

Members of Chambers are willing to consider alternative terms on a case-by-case basis, for further information, please contact the Clerks.

Payment terms:

Each client has different needs and No 18 are delighted to offer 30, 60 or 90 day payment terms or instalments in certain situations (this does not affect our terms & conditions).

Jackson Cost Budgeting rules a problem?

With the  cost rules Cost budgeting is essential and you will no doubt be aware that, as part of the implementation of the Jackson reforms, most proceedings commenced on or after 1 April 2013 will fall into the new costs budgeting regime.

As you know this means that as solicitors you will be obliged to produce a costs budget in the form of new Precedent H. This budget requires you to inform the Court of the level of costs already incurred, but also to estimate future costs , including Counsel's fees up to and including trial. This budget has to be produced as soon as a Defence is filed, with all future estimated costs have to be split into "Phases" – pre-action, issue/pleadings, CMC, disclosure, witness statements, expert reports, PTR, trial preparation, trial, ADR/settlement and contingencies ( i.e interim applications).

So how can chambers help?

Together  as a team, we aim to provide  we are able to offer the following assistance to you:

  • an estimate of Counsel’s future fees at the Defence stage, split into phases as outlined above
  • delivery of fee notes on a regular basis as agreed - with fee notes showing the fee incurred according to the phases as outlined above; and
  • written notification in advance if the estimate of Counsel’s fees for a particular phase are likely to be exceeded. For this  purpose, we suggest that we should be notified when Counsel’s fees  reach 80% of the estimate given.

The No.18’s Employment Solution

Barristers at No.18 Chambers recognise the challenges in providing high quality legal services for clients following the various changes which have made clients more hesitant in paying for legal representation in employment tribunal cases .To assist we remain committed to deliver exceptional advice, representation and resolution.  We base our service on our of being 'committed to our clients’, ‘serious about service’ and ‘always fair on fees’. Exceptional service is the corner stone of our ethos.
 
We believe in providing the same great service whether the case is small or high in value or claim. Lay clients deserve high standards of specialist advice and advocacy regardless of the value of their claim .We also know that our professional clients want our support and assistance to win cases and maximise damages for our clients in all types of cases.
 
In order to ensure this No.18 are delighted to introduce eight schemes ;
 
1- Damage based agreements (Subject to assessment)
2 - No Win No Fee
3-  No Win Low Fee
4 - Package deals
5  - Meet the insurance
6 – Armed & Police Forces Discount
6 – Low Income  “tailored fees”
7 - The  Merits, Advice, Drafting and Support Package

Damage Based Agreements:

At No.18 we recognise that following the introduction of issue fees in employment cases,  new methods of funding need to be found in order to bring claims.   No.18 are delighted to offer damaged based agreements as a solution. We are committed to assess cases as to whether Damages Based Agreements are an appropriate recourse of funding for a particular lay client in order to allow them purse their claim.

Conditional Fee agreement: (0% Success Guaranteed)

Members undertake work under a variety of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and in appropriate cases offer 0% success fee. Not all cases are appropriate for CFAs and the barrister concerned may decline to enter into a CFA after considering the merits of the claim/prospects of success.  Chambers has a flexible policy on CFAs and will do our best to tailor the agreement to the needs of the case. Our standard arrangements are based on the latest models provided by the Bar Standards Board and specialist bar associations.

No Win Low Fee Agreements:

Where a case is not suitable to take under a traditional CFA, No.18 Strives to offer a feasible alternative in order to make Litigation available to those who would otherwise not be able afford it. Individually calculated on a case to case basis Members undertake work in appropriate cases offering No Win, Low Fee. Not all cases are appropriate for No Win Low Fee Agreements and the barrister concerned may decline to enter into a CFA after considering the merits of the claim/prospects of success.  Chambers has a flexible policy on CFAs and will do our best to tailor the agreement to the needs of the case. Our standard arrangements are based on the latest models provided by the Bar Standards Board and specialist bar associations

Package Deals:

No.18 are able to offer fee packages in relation to written advisory work, drafting, conferences & litigation (for example a global fee for both a Conference and hearing or drafting and a hearing).

Meet the Insurance:

Where the matter is insurance backed, No.18 will do our utmost to work within the rates agreed with each insurance company and where there are agreed rates (either hourly or fixed) between another Chambers and that insurance firm we will also do our best to match the fees.  We are able to do both in most cases.

Armed  & Police Forces Discount:

We are delighted to  offer reduced fees ((for matters that are paid privately ) for members of the Armed & Police Forces and their dependants, please contact us for more information on our 10% discount for Armed Forces personnel and their dependants

Low income “ tailored fee’s:

We recognise that the economic pressures on some clients require flexibility on fees in order to ensure that they can secure access to high quality legal representation.  We can in most instances provide tailored fees for clients on a low income or who would previously have been eligible for legal aid to assist.

Merit, Advice, Drafting and Support Package:

No.18  are delighted to  offer our new Merits Advice, Drafting and Support package : please see below for our table of fees offering a  fixed price. In addition No.18 can offer various fee schemes to help meet your lay client budget as detailed below the table of fees

Our Barristers will provide at your request:

  • Merit assessment & Advice;
  • Drafting ET1’s & ET’3;
  • Telephone or (if needed) face to face conference with solicitor and client;
  • Assistance with ad hoc queries by phone or email where reasonably required.

Unfair Dismissal/Constructive Claims :    
        
Item of Work    1 - 10 years call    10 + years call
                                                                                                                          
Merits Assessment     £200- £400 /£350 - £650
                                                        
Initial Advice     £300 -£500 / £450 -£850
                                                        
Drafting ET1      £250 -£450 / £450 -£750
                                                        
Drafting ET3     £250 -£450 / £400 -£750
                                      
Discrimination Claims:         
        
Item of Work    1 - 10 years call    10+  Years call
                                                                                                                          
Merits Assessment     £300 - £500    / £450 -£750
                                                        
Initial Advice      £400 -£600    / £500 -£950
                                                        
Drafting ET1       £350 -£550 / £450 £850
                                                        
Drafting ET3     £350 - £550    / £450- £850

No.18 will continue to provide you with outstanding representation for your clients across all areas.

If you have any questions or queries surrounding these Schemes,  Chambers, its services or the work we undertake please contact our friendly and efficient administrative team, either Mark Windebank (Senior  Clerk) on 023 80 736812 or contact us at clerks@no18chambers.com


T&Cs for the Package

1.            A minimum fee of £150 (plus VAT) will apply.
2.            The package is not available on DBA.
3.            Barristers will only do barrister style (what is barrister style??) work as permitted by the Bar Code of Conduct.
4.            Instructing solicitors will provide only the papers necessary for Counsel to undertakethe requisite work in a orderly format, preferably a ring binder,  with an Index not the whole file. In lower value cases the advice may all be in one document rather than separate.
5.            The way in which written advice are provided may be by e-mail, in writing or by fax and will not necessarily be in a forma  written and printed advice.
6.            Advice and drafting  will generally be provided by e-mail.
7.            Instructions may be sent to barristers on paper or in electronic format.
8.            Counsel reserves the to re-negotiate the fee if there are added levels of complexity

Katherine Henry (2008) wins grant from Bar Council & Family Law Bar Association

No.18 are delighted to announce that Katie Henry has been awarded with a grant from the Bar Council and FLBA to attend the American Bar Association Annual Conference in San Francisco. Katie will be attending seminars and events with American Attorneys and the Judiciary, with a particular focus on family law and the challenges posed across the Atlantic. Katie has been asked to write an article, to be published by the FLBA on her return

Katherine Henry

Shannon Revel (2014 ) wins CBA Award

No.18 are proud to announce thatShannon Revel has won the Criminal Bar Association Bursery Award – a big congratulations from all in Chambers.

Shannon Revel

Shannon Revel (2014) appointed to CPS Advocate Panel

No.18 are delighted to announce that Shannon Revel (2014) has been appointed to the CPS Advocate Panel as a Grade 1 Prosecutor.

Shannon Revel

Stop Press : The Changing Face of Mortgage Regulation

From the 21 March 2016 the European Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD) takes affect and is to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This will lead to changes for all those involved in the mortgage process be they lenders, administrators, advisors or intermediaries and will also see changes for house builders and those involved in the buy-to-let market.

The changes will have impact for these involved with both first charge and second charge mortgages and this bulletin seeks to raise awareness of the new regime.

First Charge Mortgage Lenders and Administrators

The changes will see amendment to the Mortgage and Home Finance: Conduct of Business (MCOB) Rules, Training and Competence (TC) FCA Sourcebook and the Prudential Sourcebook for Mortgages (MIPRU). The key changes being:

  • The need to provide a binding offer and seven-day reflection period
  • An adequate explanation of a product’s essential features
  • New disclosure requirements

At a practical level those involved in this area will need to be looking at the following:

  • Whether the conditions attached to existing offers are appropriate
  • The system changes required to provide a European Standardised Information Sheet (ESIS) or Key Facts Illustration (KFI) top-up information
  • How your existing sales process might need modifying to deliver the adequate explanation?

First Charge Mortgage Intermediaries

Along with the changes highlighted above, intermediaries in particular need to be aware of the commission disclosure rules (the right for consumers to ask for information on the commissions paid by different lenders) and remuneration rules (new requirement that remuneration of advisers cannot be contingent on sales targets).

Second Charge Mortgage Lenders, Administrators and Intermediaries

The new regime means that for the first time Second Charge Mortgages will fall inside the remit of the FCA Mortgage Rules and the changes as outlined above in respect of First Charge Mortgages will also apply to Second Charge Mortgages.

Those involved in Second Charges Mortgages will also need to ensure that they obtain the relevant mortgage permissions from the FCA.

On a practical level familiarisation needs to occur as to how the FCA expects firms to deal with customers and conduct themselves throughout the life of a mortgage.

It should also be noted that those second charge mortgages which were regulated under the consumer credit regime on the 20 March 2016 will become a regulated mortgage contract.

House Builders

House builders will often offer shared equity loans or incentives of a similar nature which lead to a Second Charge on the properties concerned. Such loans are now to be covered by the new regime as outlined above with the exception of certain government schemes and loans offered by social landlords.

As such those house builders offering these products will need to look to be authorised with the FCA to carry out such activities or appoint a regulated third-party to administer the loans in certain circumstance.

Consumer Buy to Let Mortgages

Advising on, arranging, lending and administering consumer buy to let mortgages will fall inside the remit of regulation by the FCA.

The MCD defines consumer buy to let mortgage contracts as a mortgage contract not entered into by the borrower wholly or predominately for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by the borrower.  

The legislation has considered those circumstances which would fall outside this definition and as such the following would not be subject to the new regime:

  • A customer using a mortgage to purchase a property with the intention of renting it out
  • A previously purchased property with the intention of letting it out and neither being inhabited by the purchaser or a relative
  • Those customers who have already purchased other properties which has subsequently been let on the basis of a rental agreement

This bulletin seeks to set out a broad overview of the new regulatory framework for mortgage contracts and readers are advised to seek specific legal advice tailored to their individual circumstances.

James Vatcher (2006)

James Vatcher

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – James Vatcher (2006)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that James Vatcher (2006) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers and will be available for work from the 4th January 2016 . James will be joining our Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence, Commercial Chancery & Property teams.

James is developing a broad common law practice with a particular interest in personal injury and clinical negligence. He acts for both claimants and defendants in an advisory and representative capacity. He has experience of appearing in the County Court, High Court and Coroners Court.  James returns to the Bar having been employed by a UK top 40 Law Firm as a Solicitor-Advocate. James has received in the past instructions to act on behalf of several international insurers and their policy holders along with large self-insured organisations. He is able to advise clients both by way of written opinion and in conference and can assist with the drafting of pleadings, witness statements and questions to experts and Part 18 questions.  James is an experienced advocate and can take conduct of Interim Application Hearings, Case Management Conferences, Cost Management Conferences, Infant Approval Hearings and Final Hearings be they contested trials on liability or Disposal Hearings.  James is a well-reasoned negotiator and can assist with the resolution of disputes by way of Joint Settlement Meetings.  Away from Chambers, James enjoys spending time with his young family and walking the family dog in the South Wiltshire countryside.  James is a keen sailor, skier and hiker having climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania and trekked in the Annapurna region in Nepal.

James Vatcher

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Shannon Revel (2014)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Shannon Revel (2014) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers following the successful completion of her pupillage . Shannon will be joining our Family, Commercial Chancery & Immigration teams.

Shannon joined Chambers as a Pupil in November 2014, following completion of a five-week Middle Temple Scholarship placement in Israel, where she worked in an international law firm with clients based in the USA, Israel, the UK and China .Shannon was called to the Bar in July 2014, having achieved a ‘Very Competent’ on the BPTC, with grades of ‘Outstanding’ in advocacy . Having qualified as an accredited civil and commercial mediator, Shannon is able to provide a client-based and practical approach to litigation. Outside of Chambers, Shannon is a keen sportswoman who enjoys canyoning, running, and abseiling.

For more information on her practice please see her individual profile.

Shannon Revel

STOP PRESS : Misuse and abuse of section 20. (Re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [2015] EWCA Civ 1112)

Sadly we are all too well aware of the delays that the misuse of section 20 can cause.  This mechanism for accommodating children means that as long as their immediate welfare needs are safeguarded they go to the bottom of the list when it comes to local authorities issuing proceedings and getting on with any assessments.  Months can go by with children languishing in foster placements without any attempts being made to return them to the care of their parents.  

Parents in this situation rarely have an understanding of their rights to withdraw consent and when they do seek advice and withdraw their consent they are usually criticised for it.  However, withdrawing consent or threatening to withdraw consent is often the only way to force the hand of the local authority to issue proceedings and for there to be proper oversight of the issues.

Re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [2015] EWCA Civ 1112 the President has again looked at the use or misuse of section 20 by local authorities.  Whilst it is clear that “Section 20 may, in an appropriate case, have a proper role to play as a short-term measure pending the commencement of care proceedings,” it is not to be used, as it currently is, as a holding position for lengthy periods of time before proceedings are commenced.

The President sets out his view in respect of good practice at para 170.

“It follows, in my judgment, that for the future good practice requires the following, in addition to proper compliance with the guidance given by Hedley J which I have set out above:

i)  Wherever possible the agreement of a parent to the accommodation of their child under section 20 should be properly recorded in writing and evidenced by the parent’s signature.

ii)  The written document should be clear and precise as to its terms, drafted in simple and straight-forward language that the particular parent can readily understand.

iii)  The written document should spell out, following the language of section 20(8), that the parent can “remove the child” from the local authority accommodation “at any time”.

iv)  The written document should not seek to impose any fetters on the exercise of the parent’s right under section 20(8).       

v)  Where the parent is not fluent in English, the written document should be translated into the parent’s own language and the parent should sign the foreign language text, adding, in the parent’s language, words to the effect that ‘I have read this document and I agree to its terms.’

171. The misuse and abuse of section 20 in this context is not just a matter of bad practice. It is wrong; it is a denial of the fundamental rights of both the parent and the child; it will no longer be tolerated; and it must stop. Judges will and must be alert to the problem and pro-active in putting an end to it. From now on, local authorities which use section 20 as a prelude to care proceedings for lengthy periods or which fail to follow the good practice I have identified, can expect to be subjected to probing questioning by the court. If the answers are not satisfactory, the local authority can expect stringent criticism and possible exposure to successful claims for damages.”

Practitioners beware!!!  On behalf of parents we should no longer be agreeing to fetters on their right to withdraw consent to section 20. We should no longer be offering a period of notice in writing before the parents can withdraw consent.  Such actions are likely unlawful.

Tracey Hennessey

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant - Tracey Hennessey (2001)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Tracey Hennessey (2001) (formerly of 12 College Place, Southampton) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers . Tracey is a family specialist and will be joining both our Care and Children Team  and our Court of Protection Team.

Tracey’s practice encompasses all aspects of family law in relation to Children, with a particular specialism in Public Law Care work. Tracey  has a very approachable and friendly manner with clients. For more information on her practice please see her individual profile below .

Tracey Hennessey

Wye Valley NHS Trust v B (Rev 1) [2015] EWCOP 60 – Individual autonomy succeeds against medical advice as to a patient’s best interests

The Court of Protection has ruled that a mentally incapacitated man can refuse lifesaving treatment.

Mr. B, a diabetic with a severely infected leg, refused amputation. Doctors treating Mr. B wished to perform such operation in order to save his life.  The court noted that ‘’without the operation, the inevitable outcome is that he will shortly die, quite possibly within a few days. If he has the operation, he may live for a few years’’ (para 1).

The court considered the principles of section 1 and 2 Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the authorities notably Aintree University Hospitals NHS Trust v James [2014] AC 591.

The Judge was satisfied that Mr B did not have capacity to make decisions (para 34). However, on the balance of interest test, the court considered that it would not be in Mr B’s interest to have the operation. Mr Justice Peter Jackson stated ‘’ I am quite sure that it would not be in Mr B's best interests to take away his little remaining independence and dignity in order to replace it with a future for which he understandably has no appetite and which could only be achieved after a traumatic and uncertain struggle that he and no one else would have to endure. There is a difference between fighting on someone's behalf and just fighting them. Enforcing treatment in this case would surely be the latter’’ (para 45).

Mr Justice Jackson visited Mr B as to his needs and wishes. It was noted that mental illness of Mr B resulted in him having religious delusions. Despite these being delusions, the Judge noted the importance of religion to him.

The court stated ‘’Mr B has had a hard life. Through no fault of his own, he has suffered in his mental health for half a century. He is a sociable man who has experienced repeated losses so that he has become isolated. He has no next of kin. No one has ever visited him in hospital and no one ever will. Yet he is a proud man who sees no reason to prefer the views of others to his own. His religious beliefs are deeply meaningful to him and do not deserve to be described as delusions: they are his faith and they are an intrinsic part of who he is’’ (para 43).

The case demonstrates the importance of a person’s right to autonomy and the weight that this should hold. Despite evidence of mental illness, the Judge stated that ‘’I would not define Mr B by reference to his mental illness or his religious beliefs. Rather, his core quality is his "fierce independence", and it is this that is now, as he sees it, under attack’’ (para 43).

Katherine Henry

No.18 Welcomes New Tenant

No.18 is delighted to announce; Shannon Revel has accepted an invitation to join Chambers following the completion of her pupillage at the end of November. Everyone at No.18 wishes her every success. For more information regarding Shannon or her practice, please contact Mark Windebank (Senior Clerk) on 02380 736 812 or e-mial clerks@no18chambers.co.uk

Shannon Revel

Laura Baines speaks at the launch of the International Education Forum Executive Business Network

No.18 are delighted to announce that Laura Baines will be speaking at the launch of the IEF Executive Business Network at the Bournemouth Highcliff Marriott Hotel on Friday 23 October. If you would like any further information please see the attached flyer or alternatively if you are interested in attending please contact Gemma Freeman at Lacey’s Solicitors on E: g.freeman@laceyssolicitors.co.uk, T: +44 (0)1202 557256

Laura Baines

No.18 welcomes new junior clerk

No. 18 Chambers is pleased to announce that from 19th October 2015 Rebecca Brown has been appointed our new Junior Clerk. Rebecca has spent the previous three years studying to achieve an Upper Second Class BA (Hons) Degree in Criminology at Southampton Solent University. Rebecca is delighted to join our ever-growing team at No.18 to commence her career in Clerking. Along with Mark Windebank (Senior Clerk), our clerking team strives to deliver an exceptional level of advice, resolution and service; our ethos being, ‘committed to our clients’, ‘serious about service’ and ‘always fair on fees’.

NEWS FLASH : The ‘tragic’ case of Re A (A child) [2015] EWCA Civ 910: Implacable hostility in contact cases

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the ongoing issue in private law children cases of implacable hostility, reaffirming the approach of Re W.

In Re A (A child) [2015] EWCA Civ 910, the child (B), now aged 12, and his Mother had significant psychological and emotional vulnerabilities. The father had initially applied for contact with his son in 2006.  However, the father subsequently withdrew this application due to the stress that this was having on the mother.

The father made a subsequent application in 2010. By this stage, the mother ‘’had developed and consolidated a highly negative and adverse view of the Father to the effect that he was a dangerous man with respect to B's welfare, and B came to adopt that view’’ (para 20).

Four years later, the matter was finally determined before His Honour Judge Atkins on 17th September 2014. HHJ Atkins stated that in relation to the Father ‘’now that he, as I find, presents as a ... calm, thoughtful and caring man, somebody who has a good relationship with his own family, and somebody who does not present a risk to [B].  I consider that he does genuinely care for and want a relationship with [B]." (para 43). However, HHJ Atkins dismissed the father’s application for change of residence and ordered no direct contact, due to the harm likely to be suffered by the child. The father subsequently appealed.

In the Court of Appeal, McFarlane LJ reiterated the provisions now contained in section 1(2A) Children Act 1989 that "it is and should be a given that it will normally be in the best interests of a child to grow up having a full, real and entirely ordinary relationship with each of his or her parents, notwithstanding that they have separated and that there may be difficulties between the two of them as adults" (para 43). He reiterated that the approach to be taken in implacable hostility cases is as per Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999:

  • Where it is in the best interest of a child to spend time with the other parent, then part of the responsibility of the parent with care must be the duty and responsibility to deliver what the child needs, hard though that may be;
  • Where there are significant difficulties in the way of establishing safe and beneficial contact, the responsibility falls on both parents to address those difficulties;
  • All parents have a responsibility to do their best to meet their child's needs in relation to the provision of contact. It is not acceptable for a parent to shirk that responsibility and simply say "no" to reasonable strategies designed to improve the situation in this regard.
  • However, MacFarlane LJ dismissed the father’s appeal, stating that the Judge was right to identify the harm that B would suffer if direct contact was ordered. At paragraph 51, he said ‘’This was a boy who was shortly to be 12 years old.  He was adamantly and consistently saying "no" to any form of contact, even indirect contact, with his father.  The reasons that he was saying "no" may well be subtle and sophisticated, emotionally entangled with his relationship with his mother and the mind-set that he had developed about his father in the period during which he has not been seeing him, but "no" was his approach, and to contemplate moving a 12 year old child from that position to having contact was a formidable obstacle in the way of the Father's application.’’

The Court reiterated the tragedy of the case, not only for the father but also for the child who ‘’ had a warm, easy and close relationship with his father when he was much younger before their separation took place’’ (para 52).

Katherine Henry

STOP PRESS - Scotland to Abolish Tribunal Fees

The Scottish Government, in its programme for the following year "A Stronger Scotland - The Government's Programme for Scotland 2015 - 2016", have confirmed their intention to abolish Employment Tribunal Fees in Scotland next year. The Paper may be found at the following link - http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00484439.pdf"

STOP PRESS - Is a noise induced hearing loss claim a ‘disease’ for the purposes of the costs of a CFA?

In Dalton v British Telecom plc, QBD [2015] ICR 901, the High Court (Phillips J.) considered that a claim for noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) was a disease claim, when determining the recoverability and level of success fees in pre-April 2013 CFA funded cases.   

The Claimants brought NIHL claims against the former Defendant employer which were compromised by way of a settlement agreement prior to trial.

The Parties’ agreed a figure in respect of damages; in addition to which the Defendant agreed, in principle to pay the Claimants’ costs of the action. The quantum of solicitors and counsels’ CFA costs were, however, disputed; and in particular the level of success fee which those costs ought properly to attract.  If NIHL was to be regarded as a disease claim, the case would fall within the scope of section V of CPR Part 45; and the Claimants’ legal representatives would be entitled  to a success fee of 62.5% on settlement of claims; this section relating to disease claims settled before trial  (other than for certain irrelevant specified conditions).

Otherwise, a NIHL claim would be classified as an injury and, if 'sustained' on or after 1 October 2004 fell within section IV; attracting a (considerably lower) success fee of only 25%. If sustained before that date, the success fee was not fixed and fell to be assessed by the Court, if not agreed.

On 4th April 2013 and following a number of (first instance) decisions at District Judge level providing inconsistent conclusions, the Regional Costs Judge directed that the issue be referred for determination by High Court Judge as a preliminary issue.

At the High Court, the Defendant contended, in reliance on certain aspects of the aetiology of NIHL and the case of Patterson v. Ministry Defence [2013] 2 Costs LR 197, disease should be given its natural ordinary meaning.  To the layman, this rendered NIHL an injury, not a disease; on the basis that:

i) NIHL is caused by the physical force of excessive noise on the structure of the inner ear, degrading hair cells; rather than regenerate, the hair cells are replaced by scar tissue;

ii) Long term exposure will typically lead to gradual and progressive hearing loss; the symptoms often being first noticed when age-related hearing loss overlays the (earlier) traumatic loss;

iii) However, the damage suffered from each instance of exposure occurs immediately with progressive worsening limited to days or weeks post exposure.

Whereas the Claimants accepted the layman ( with no background in NIHL claims) may well regard NIHL as an injury (rather than a disease);when placed in the proper legislative and medical context, it was clear that the term disease within the rules  had an established meaning sufficient to include NIHL.

Consideration of the legislative history, starting with the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906; the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 and the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee in 1973 (under their statutory powers); plainly indicated Parliament’s intention to classify NIHL as disease claims.

The Court also took into account that CPR 45 Section V’s previous incarnation, which  came into force on 1st October 2005 and had, by convention of  the Court, practitioners and insurers, treated NIHL as a type C disease claim.  The Court also examined the cases of Barker v Corus [2006] 2 AC 572 and Sienkiewicz v Grief (UK) Ltd [2011] 2 AC 299 (SC) both in which  it was observed that loss of hearing claims were to be categorised as disease claims.

Finally, the Court considered a press release from the Civil Justice Counsel and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee; concluding that NIHL should be included in the classification of diseases for the purposes of section V. Applying R v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349 and distinguishing Patterson; and thereby favouring a purposive construction the Court outlined that:

a) Occupational deafness had been expressly defined as a disease since 1985, Parliament must therefore have intended NIHL to be a disease for the purposes of the related legislation;

b) NIHL was recognised as an  occupational disease; and accounted for the majority of such claims. It is a paradigm case of such. It was inconceivable, when looked at in its proper litigation context that Parliament did not intend to include NIHL in type C of section V of the current rules;

c) The Civil Justice Council’s press release recorded the ‘industry agreement’ of NIHL as a disease and this likely put the matter beyond any sensible argument.

In the circumstances, NIHL claims plainly fell within the remit of Section V, attracting the higher success fee if settled before trial.

Barnaby Large, Helen Nugent

STOP PRESS – Proactive role should be taken by the judiciary in the absence of representation and funding.

The Court of Appeal has recently overturned the decision of His Honour Judge Bellamy in Re K-H [2015] EWCA Civ 543. Proceedings commenced in the Family Court sitting at Leicester and concerned arrangements for contact between the Father and his children, K and H (now aged 6 and 4). The Mother’s eldest child, Y, alleged that she had been sexually abused by the Father. His Honour Judge Bellamy determined that is was important to consider whether Y’s allegation was true and a fact find was ordered for 14th January 2015, with Y to attend and provide oral evidence. The Mother was legally aided and therefore able to have representation. The Father was in person, unable to obtain legal aid or afford representation.

His Honour Judge Bellamy decided that “(i) it was not appropriate for the father to cross-examine Y (in fact he did not wish to do so); (ii) it was not appropriate for him (the judge) to put questions to Y to test her allegation against the father; (iii) the court should arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to cross-examine Y on behalf of the father; and (iv) the costs of the legal representative should be borne by Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service ("HMCTS")” (para 3). Consideration was given to Q V Q [2014] EWFC 31, [2015] 1 WLR 2040 , notably para 79 in the Judgment, where Sir James Munby observed “In the ultimate analysis, if the criteria in section 31G(6) are satisfied, and if the judge is satisfied that the essential requirements of a fair trial as required by FPR 1.1 and Articles 6 and 8 cannot otherwise be met, the effect of the words "cause to be put" in section 31G(6) is, in my judgment, to enable the judge to direct that appropriate representation is to be provided by – at the expense of – the court, that is, at the expense of HMCTS.”

The Lord Chancellor appealed the decision.  The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and found there no power for the Judge to order HMCTS to provide funding, disagreeing with the approach taken in Q v Q. At paragraphs 60 and 61, the Court of Appeal stated “In a simple straightforward case, questioning by the judge is likely to be the preferred option and it should present no difficulties. The judge will know what the unrepresented party's case is. It may be helpful for the judge to ask him or her to prepare written questions for the court to consider in advance. Sometimes, unexpected answers may be given to the judge. These may require the judge to ask the unrepresented party to comment on the unexpected answers and to suggest supplementary questions for the Judge's consideration. In my view, in the present case, which is fairly straightforward, the judge should probably have decided to conduct the questioning himself. I am in no doubt that the nature of this case is such that there were options available to the judge which would have ensured a fair hearing and vindicated the article 6 and 8 rights of the father and K and H’’.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that there would be cases where it would be inappropriate for the questioning to be undertaken by the judge or clerk- “I acknowledge that there may be cases where the position is different. I have in mind, for example, a case where the oral evidence which needs to be tested by questioning is complicated. It may be complex medical or other expert evidence. Or it may be complex and/or confused factual evidence, say, from a vulnerable witness. It may be that in such cases, none of the options to which I have referred can make up for the absence of a legal representative able to conduct the cross-examination. If this occurs, it may mean that the lack of legal representation results in the proceedings not being conducted in compliance with article 6 or 8 of the Convention. This is the concern expressed by Sir James Munby at para 76 in Q v Q. In order to avoid the risk of a breach of the Convention, consideration should be given to the enactment of a statutory provision for (i) the appointment of a legal representative to conduct the cross-examination and (ii) the payment out of central funds of such sums as appear to be reasonably necessary to cover the cost of the legal representative, i.e. a provision in civil proceedings analogous to section 38(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and section 19(3)(e) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. (para 62)”.

The decision suggests the need for a proactive role to be taken by the judiciary in the absence of representation and funding. However, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the need for a statutory provision for family proceedings as found in criminal legislation. Given the current stance on legal aid, it remains to be seen whether one will be enacted.

Katherine Henry

STOP PRESS - Helen Nugent elected as Secretary to the APIL Barristers’ Group

No.18 are delighted to announce that Helen Nugent (2007) has been elected as the Secretary to the APIL Barristers' Group. Helen has over 7 years' experience in personal injury (road traffic accidents, public and employers' liability claims), fatal accidents, product liability (including breaches of implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979) and clinical negligence claims (for both claimants and defendants).   In particular, she has extensive experience of catastrophic injury claims; and cases involving complex liability, medical causation and quantum issues.   She has experience of claims against the Ministry of Defence and she is currently developing her practice in occupational illness claims, including but not limited to: industrial disease (such as noise induced hearing loss); harassment, stress and bullying at work.  In addition, Helen has drafted Part 8 pleadings in claims for provisional damages. Helen has also been involved in medical and dental negligence claims and cases relating to complex orthopedic injury, birth injury, delayed and wrongful diagnosis. In addition, she has experience of inquests. Prior to coming to the Bar, Helen set up and developed her own successful legal business: providing paralegal services to barristers and solicitors across the country.  She frequently appeared in the County Court in Case Management Conferences, Costs Management Conferences, Infant Approval hearings and interim applications.   As a linguist, Helen has deployed her language skills in large, high value, international group actions (in Peru and the Côte d'Ivoire); involving cross-border litigation and jurisdictional issues.  More recently, she was selected to take part in the Bar Council, British-Brazilian exchange, with a placement in a law firm in São Paulo.

Helen Nugent

STOP PRESS – JA (meaning of “access rights”) India [2015] UKUT 00225 (IAC)

JA (meaning of 'access rights') India [2015] UKUT 00225 (IAC) Another case showing the natural link between immigration and family law. In this instance, the definition of access rights, which is not defined in the immigration rules and no longer used in the family court. Appendix FM provides an avenue for parents to stay with their children in the United Kingdom in some circumstances. Condition E-ECPT.2.4 states- (a) The applicant must provide evidence that they have either- (i) sole parental responsibility for the child; or(ii) access rights to the child; and (b) The applicant must provide evidence that they are taking, and intend to continue to take, an active role in the child's upbringing. However, there have been no use of the word 'access' in family law since the introduction of the Children Act 1989. The recent decision of JA (meaning of "access rights") India [2015] UKUT 00225 (IAC) has confronted the issue. In JA, the refusal letter of the Appellant stated he had: "not shown that you have access rights to your children only indirect contact.  As a result of this you are unable to take an active role in their upbringing.  Your telephone calls and letters can continue unchanged from overseas as can your child maintenance payments and any contact you have with the children’s school.  As such, you fail to meet the requirements of E-LTRPT 2.4." In JA, the court said "where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance or leave to remain as a parent" (Headnote 1).The court held that "access rights" can include indirect and direct contact between a parent and child (paragraph 11). This could be shown either by court order or agreement between the parties (paragraph 15). Once satisfied "that a parent has "access rights", an appellant must still prove that he/she "is taking and intend to continue to take an active role in the child’s upbringing" (paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (ii)). Whether he/she will be able to do so will depend upon the evidence rather than the nature of the "access rights." However, it is likely to be unusual that a person having only "indirect" access rights will be able to satisfy this provision. In some cases, Tribunals may need to examine the reasons why the Family Court has ordered "indirect" rather than "direct" access (Headnote 4)". The judgment provides useful guidance as to the interpretation of E-ECPT.2.4 and the impact decisions in the family court can have on the tribunal.

Katherine Henry

STOP PRESS - Lee Young Successful in the Court of Appeal; setting aside Care & Placement Orders and remitting decision back - Re: T (2015)

Court of Appeal, Aikens, McFarlane, Bean LJJ, 18 June 2015  (Public law children – Procedure – Judgment – 6-month delay  handing down  ) The parents' argument that the judge had not regarded drastic changes in the family home in the six months between the concluding hearing and the judgment being handed down was successful and their appeal was allowed. In care proceedings concerning 10 of the mother's 15 children there were allegations of long-standing neglect and poor parenting. The threshold under s 31 of the Children Act 1989 was agreed by all parties on the basis of neglect, physical and emotional harm. It fell to be determined whether the parents would be able to provide good enough care. Four of the 10 children had remained living with the parents throughout the proceedings under interim supervision orders. Six mothers after the hearing concluded judgment was handed down and final care orders were made. The parents appealed, primarily in relation to the four children who had remained at home. They claimed that the judge had paid no regard to what had or had not occurred in the 6 month period leading up to the handing down of the judgment. The appeal in relation to the four children was allowed and the final care orders were set aside. The case was remitted to the judge for a reappraisal in light of updating evidence which would be filed by the parties. Pursuant to s 32(1) of the 1989 Act and FPR 12.22 the court's key responsibility was to draw up a timetable to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that an application could be dispensed within 26 weeks. Where a case could not be completed in that timeframe and further time was required for preparation of the judgment s 32 continued to apply. It was incumbent upon a judge to make express provision for an extension of up to 8 weeks to the timetable for that purpose. In deciding whether to extent the timetable the court had to have regard to the requirements of s 32 and to the need for an extension to be limited to what was necessary to enable the court to resolve proceedings justly and to the need to have regard to the impact of any extension on the welfare of the child. The judge had identified that the question of whether the parents could provide good enough care for the children was at the centre of his deliberations. He was clear that careful thought had to be given to whether it was really necessary to remove the children. He had addendum submissions which noted that the parents had made significant and sustained progress in the 6-month interim period. On the facts, it was necessary for the judge to receive updating evidence from the parties as to the welfare of the children who had remained at home.

Lee Young

Our Newsletter

Articles


Upcoming Events & Seminars

No.18  offer a comprehensive seminar programme throughout the year within their specialist fields. Barristers are also happy to provide bespoke in-house training tailored to client's individual business needs. As an authorised CPD provider with the Law Society and the Bar Council all seminars carry the requisite  points and are free of charge.   

We are always looking to cover more topics, if you feel there is an area that you would like to see covered or to receive details of forthcoming events please do not hesitate to contact our clerks.


Family Private Law Children & Matrimonial Finance Conference 2017

Seminar Start date: Wednesday 29th November 2017 - From: 9:15am

Our Private Law Children & Matrimonial Finance Conference 2017 is aimed at all who are currently practicing in all aspects of Private Law Children & Matrimonial Finance, and those who are otherwise interested. We are planning on an informative and relaxed seminar at £35 per person (incl of VAT) for 5 hours’ CPD. We will be holding this seminar on 29th November 2017 at Double Tree by Hilton, Bracken Place, Chilworth SO16 3NG.

Click here to download the leaflet and booking form


Christmas Drinks Evening 2017

Event Start date: Thursday 14th December 2017 - From: 6pm

No 18 Chambers invites you to join us for a Christmas Drinks Evening.

We would be delighted if you could come along on the 14th December 2017, to the Southampton Harbour Hotel, Ocean Village, Southampton, SO14 3QT (Sat Nav : SO14 3TL) 6pm onwards to join us for drinks and canapés.

Please RSVP to clerks@no18chambers.com or contact us on 02380 736812

Dress code : Lounge Suits


 

Past Events & Seminars


The Kilimanjaro Kids Charity Netball Tournament

Event Start date: Saturday 12th August 2017

The Kilimanjaro Kids, Helen Nugent and Laura Baines are organising a charity netball tournament in partnership with No.18 Chambers on 12th August 2017. All funds raised will be split between Cancer Research UK and the Devon Air Ambulance Trust (DAART). This tournament is part of a larger fundraising campaign by Helen and Laura to raise money for the two charities, by climbing Kilimanjaro in February 2018.

Click here to download the flyer.


An Evening of Drinks, Canapés & Celebration

Event Start date: Thursday 27th July 2017

No 18 Chambers invites you to join us for an evening of Drinks, Canapés & Celebration on the appointment of our Head of Chambers Tracey Hennessey.

After years of dedicated service as Head Of Chambers, Ashley Ailes is standing down. He remains a valued member of chambers, continuing to practice. On behalf of all members, the new Head of Chambers offers Ashley sincere thanks for his unfailing commitment, leadership and hard work throughout the years.

We would be delighted if you could come along on the 27th July 2017, to The Hotel du Vin , 14 Southgate Street, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 9EF 6pm onwards to join us for drinks and canapés.

Please RSVP to clerks@no18chambers.com or contact us on 02380 736812

Dress code : Lounge Suits


Employment Breakfast 2017

Seminar Start date: Thursday 29th June 2017 - From: 8.00am - To: 10.30am

“How to Lose at the Employment Tribunal”

Our employment breakfast 2017 is aimed at all those practicing and
otherwise interested in employment law. We are planning on an informative
and relaxed breakfast at £15 for 2 hours’ CPD.

Click here for the leaflet and booking form


Family Public Law Care Conference 2017

Event Start date: Friday 26th May 2017 - From: 9.15am - To: 4.30pm

Our Family Public Law Care Conference 2017is aimed at all who are
currently practicing in all aspects of Public Law Care Family Law, and those
who are otherwise interested. We are planning on an informative and
relaxed seminar at £35 per person (incl of VAT) for 5 hours’ CPD. We will be
holding this seminar on 26th May 2017 at HILTON Southampton.


Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Seminar

Event Start date: Tuesday 9th May 2017 - From: 2pm

No.18 are delighted to announce that Barnaby Large (2007), Helen Nugent (2007) & Edward Hurley (2010) are speaking at The Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Seminar on the 9th May 2017.  

Barnaby large (2007)  : Barnaby will be discussing the impact of litigants in person on civil proceedings. He will explore the obligations on advocates and litigators as well as the treatment litigants in person will receive from the civil courts.

Helen Nugent ( 2007 ): Helen will be discussing the enforcement in civil proceedings including charging orders, warrants of execution and High Court enforcement

Edward Hurley (2010) : Edward will be discussing Service Charges and a guide to the rights & wrongs of recoverability

For further details contact Nicola Jennings at the Hampshire Law Society on 023 8044 7022 or email at administration@hampshirelawsociety.co.uk , alternatively please do not hesitate to contact us in chambers


Cocktail Making Masterclass

Event Start date: Thursday 30th March 2017 - From: 6pm

 


Christmas Drinks Evening

Event Start date: Thursday 1st December 2016 - From: 6pm - To: 9.30pm

No 18 Chambers invites you to join us for a Christmas Drinks Evening.

Please come along on the 1st December 2016 to the Sea City Museum, Civic Centre, Southampton, SO14 7LP from 6pm - 9.30pm and join us for drinks and canapés.

Please RSVP to clerks@no18chambers.com or contact us on 02380 736812.


Family Law Matrimonial Finance Advocacy Training Seminar

Event Start date: Thursday 6th October 2016 - From: 9:15am - To: 4:30pm

Our Family Law Advocacy Training Seminar is aimed at all who are currently practicing in all aspects of Matrimonial finance and those who are otherwise interested. We are planning on an informative and relaxed seminar at £35 per person (incl of VAT) for 5 hours’ CPD. We will be holding this seminar on the 6th October 2016 at the Hilton Hotel, Southampton.

Click here for the leaflet and booking form


Family Law (Public & Private Law Children)

Seminar Start date: Friday 10th June 2016 - From: 9.15am

Advocacy Training Seminar - 10th June 2016 - 5hrs CPD

Our Family Law Advocacy Training Seminar is aimed at all who are currently practicing in all aspects of Family Law, whether Public Law Care or Private Law Children and those who are otherwise interested. We are planning on an informative and relaxed seminar at £25 per person (incl of VAT) for 5 hours’ CPD. We will be holding this seminar on the 10th June 2016 at HILTON Southampton.

Click here for the leaflet and booking form


Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Update

Seminar Start date: Tuesday 17th May 2016 - From: 13:45pm - To: 16:45pm

No.18’s Barnaby Large (2007), Edward Hurley (2010) & Helen Nugent (2007) are pleased to be speaking at; The Hampshire Law Society’s Civil Litigation update on the 17th May  2016 from 13.45 – 1645 pm at The Chilworth Hotel, Southampton For further details contact Nicola Jennings at the Hampshire Law Society on 023 8044 7022 or email at administration@hampshirelawsociety.co.uk , alternatively please do not hesitate to contact us in chambers.


Meet the tenants Drinks & Networking Evening

Event Start date: Thursday 3rd March 2016

No 18 Chambers invites you to join us for an evening of Drinks ,Canapés & Networking to meet our New Tenants

We would be delighted if you could come along on the 3rd March 2016, to The Vestry Restaurant & Bar ,61 Commercial Road, Southampton ,Hampshire SO15 1GG from  6pm onwards to join us for drinks and canapés.

Please RSVP to clerks@no18chambers.com or contact us on 02380 736812

Dress code : Lounge Suits


Conflict Management Seminar & Social for the Re-launch of Young Resolution (Hampshire) supported by N0.18 Chambers

Seminar Start date: Tuesday 23rd February 2016 - From: 4.30pm

Venue : Highfield House, Highfield Lane, Southampton, SO17 1AQ

To  Re- launch Young Resolution Hampshire No.18’s Mr Ian Wheaton and Miss Tracey Hennessey are team up with personal coach, Jessica Strachwitz Hamilton  speak on “ all you need to know about conflict management”. This will prepare you for many types of conflictual situation, at work, with clients and in court.

Join us from 4.30pm, seminar to commence at 5pm Canapés and drinks after with time to network!

For more information please see the attached flyer and booking form or to register  contact Kate Stovold  by e-mail :kate.stovold@trethowans.com or Chambers on  02380 736 812 or e-mail: clerks@no18chambers.com


Family Law Financial Seminar for Hampshire Law Society

Event Start date: Tuesday 2nd February 2016

Mr Ian Wheaton and Ms Katherine Henry are to speak at Hampshire Law Society’s Family Law Financial Seminar on Tuesday 2 February 2016 at the Chilworth Hilton Hotel, Bracken Place, Chilworth, Southampton. Ian  has expertise in the full range of Financial provision including all interim applications that can be made under this ever challenging area of law. He regularly  advises and represents client in high value matrimonial finance, schedule 1 applications and cohabitation disputes. Katherine accepts instructions at both advisory and advocacy stages in matrimonial finance, schedule 1 applications and cohabitation disputes.

This course will include:

  • How many bites of the cherry?
  • A reflection on the case of Vince – v- White [2015] UKSC 14 concerning a wife who brought a financial remedy claim 22 years after the divorce was completed.
  • How long should a firm keep its divorce files? 7 years? 100 years?
  • Strike Out Applications under the Family Procedure Rules

For more information or to register  either contact Nicola Jennings ( Administrator of the Hampshire Law Society) on 023 8044 7022 or e-mail :administration@hampshirelawsociety.co.uk or Chambers on  02380 736 812 or e-mial: clerks@no18chambers.com


Evening of Celebration & Art

Event Start date: Thursday 22nd October 2015 - From: 6pm

No 18 Chambers invites you to join us for an evening of art, celebrating with Ashley Ailes and Gary Fawcett as they mark 40 years at the Bar.

Please come along on the 22nd October 2015 to Rownhams House from 6pm onwards and join us for drinks and canapés whilst enjoying the current art exhibition on show.


Civil Litigation Update

Seminar Start date: Thursday 8th October 2015 - From: 2.00pm - To: 4.30pm

Our Civil Seminar is aimed at all practicing and otherwise interested matters.

We are planning on an informative and relaxed seminar at £10 (incl of VAT) for 2.5 hours’ CPD. We will be holding this seminar on the 8th October 2015 at Rownhams House.

Click here for the programme and booking form.


Immigration: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Event Start date: Thursday 21st May 2015

We are organising another Immigration Seminar on 21st May 2015 at 3pm entitled ''Immigration: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly''. The focus will be on advocacy tips for the tribunal as well as an update on changes to Article 8 and the Points Based System. The venue is at Rownhams House, Southampton SO16 8LF The afternoon promises to be both informative and entertaining! If you wish to attend please either email us at clerks@no18chambers.com or call Mark Windebank (Senior Clerk) or Laura Jackson (Junior clerk )  on 02380 736812 to book your place We hope to see you and the team there.


Chambers’ Summer Employment Seminar

Event Start date: Friday 1st August 2014

Chambers’ Summer 2014 Employment Seminar


Chambers’ Summer Commercial Seminar

Event Start date: Wednesday 1st August 2012

Chambers’ Summer 2012 Commercial Seminar

Latest Tweets

Siobhan Thomas shibstom Siobhan Thomas

RT @francbit: Thank you @SouthamptonFC! We have so many amazing prizes up for grabs! @MooreBlatch @NestorIFA @trethowansllp @No18chambers @…

13 hours, 35 minutes ago Reply Retweet Favorite
Moore Blatch MooreBlatch Moore Blatch

RT @francbit: Thank you @SouthamptonFC! We have so many amazing prizes up for grabs! @MooreBlatch @NestorIFA @trethowansllp @No18chambers @…

2 days, 10 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
Harriet Brooks HarrietBrooks89 Harriet Brooks

RT @francbit: Thank you @SouthamptonFC! We have so many amazing prizes up for grabs! @MooreBlatch @NestorIFA @trethowansllp @No18chambers @…

2 days, 10 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
Francesca CBIT francbit Francesca CBIT

Thank you @SouthamptonFC! We have so many amazing prizes up for grabs! @MooreBlatch @NestorIFA @trethowansllp… https://t.co/NHrlwWwgrU

2 days, 10 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
No18 Chambers No18chambers No18 Chambers

RT @juniorlawyers: Law firms yet to embrace SQE, survey shows https://t.co/QdEKjLOb95 #SQE #juniorlawyers

4 days, 45 minutes ago Reply Retweet Favorite
Mark Windebank MarkWindebank Mark Windebank

RT @No18chambers'>No18chambers: @No18chambers'>No18chambers are holding a Family Private Law & Matrimonial Finance Conference on 29th Nov 2017-5hrs CPD-Double Tree by…

4 days, 2 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
No18 Chambers No18chambers No18 Chambers

RT @TheLawMap: Driverless car manufacturers should face criminal penalties where faulty software causes injury... https://t.co/4DWy7Gkn0M

4 days, 3 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
No18 Chambers No18chambers No18 Chambers

RT @UoSLawSchool: Lord Briggs will present a lecture on “The Civil Courts Structure Review and The Online Court”, followed by a Q&A session…

4 days, 3 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
No18 Chambers No18chambers No18 Chambers

RT @TimMelvilleWalk: Profoundly depressing: 40% cut in real terms. https://t.co/1qJDZ92i4Y

4 days, 3 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
No18 Chambers No18chambers No18 Chambers

@No18chambers are holding a Family Private Law & Matrimonial Finance Conference on 29th Nov 2017-5hrs CPD-Double Tree by Hilton, interested?

4 days, 3 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite