Latest News

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Rachel Chapman (2017)

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Rachel Chapman (2017) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers following successful completion of her pupillage in October. Rachel will be joining our Family & Civil teams.

Rachel joined chambers following successful completion of her pupillage in October 2019. Rachel predominantly undertakes work within Family Law and Civil Law.

Rachel was called to the Bar in 2017 following her successful completion of the Bar Professional Training Course at the University of the West of England where she obtained an ‘Outstanding’.

Prior to pupillage, Rachel worked as a paralegal in a national firm of solicitors where she specialised in Regulatory Law, consistently working with some of the major Healthcare Regulators.

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Rachel Chapman (2017)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Rachel Chapman (2017) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers following successful completion of her pupillage in October. Rachel will be joining our Family & Civil teams.

Rachel joined chambers following successful completion of her pupillage in October 2019. Rachel predominantly undertakes work within Family Law and Civil Law.

Rachel was called to the Bar in 2017 following her successful completion of the Bar Professional Training Course at the University of the West of England where she obtained an ‘Outstanding’.

Prior to pupillage, Rachel worked as a paralegal in a national firm of solicitors where she specialised in Regulatory Law, consistently working with some of the major Healthcare Regulators.

Payne (2014)

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Click here to view Rachel Chapman's full profile

STOP PRESS – BARNABY LARGE HAS EAT CASE REPORTED (UKEAT/0282/18/RN)

Case Summary:

 

The Claimant had taken photographs of invoices she had seen during her work, which she considered established that she had not been told the truth by her employer about her pay and working hours. She provided copies of these photographs to her solicitor, who was assisting with her grievance, but was subsequently dismissed for breach of confidentiality. The ET accepted that the act of sending the photographed copies of the invoices to her solicitor was a protected act but found the Claimant’s dismissal was in no way related to that act; to the extent the Respondent had been aggrieved about her conduct in that regard, it was because she failed to demonstrate support in a time of financial hardship. When considering the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal, however, the ET found that the reason for her dismissal was her conduct in photographing the invoices and then sending those images to her solicitor.  Given the context, the ET did not find this was an act of gross misconduct but it held that the decision to dismiss did not fall outside the band of reasonable response given the Respondents’ sense of grievance about what was seen as a lack of trust and the Claimant’s perceived failure to demonstrate support in a time of financial hardship. The ET went on to find the dismissal had been unfair for procedural reasons but concluded that, if a fair procedure had been followed, there was still an 80% likelihood that the Claimant would have been dismissed.  The ET further held that the Claimant’s conduct was such that there should be a further 80% reduction. The Claimant appealed.

 

Decision:

Held: allowing the appeal

In considering the complaint of unfair dismissal, the ET’s findings as to the reason for the dismissal were such that it was inconsistent for it to hold that the protected act (the Claimant’s act of sending copies of the invoices to her solicitor) had not materially influenced the decision: that was an unavoidable consequence of its finding as to the reason for the dismissal and it was perverse of the ET to find otherwise. The ET’s decisions relevant to the Polkey reduction and on contributory conduct were also unsafe. The ET had failed to grapple with the question of seriousness in relation to the Claimant’s conduct, failing to demonstrate that it had any regard to the context in which the Claimant had passed on the photographs (for a specific purpose related to getting advice and assistance in her grievance, and sent to a solicitor, who was bound by their own duty of confidence).  As for its finding on contributory fault, that was inadequately reasoned given that - in the particular context the ET had itself identified - there was no explanation as to why the Claimant’s actions had been blameworthy.

In relation to the victimisation claim, given the ET’s findings of fact, there was only one possible outcome and the Judgment in that regard would be set aside and substituted by a finding that the victimisation claim relating to the Claimant’s dismissal was upheld. The questions of any reduction under Polkey and/or for contributory fault would be remitted for reconsideration to a differently constituted ET.

For a full transcript of Judgement please click on the below links https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2019/0282_18_0705.html&query=(elston)

or https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d1f5a49e5274a08d9d8c537/Ms_I_Elston_v_1__Robbie_s_Photographic_Ltd__2__Mr_W_McRobbie_UKEAT_0282_18_RN.pdf

Click here to view Barnaby Large's full profile

Case study : Order for lump sum -v- undertaking to pay a lump sum

1.  a.  MCA s23 (1) (c) states the court may make:-
 
‘an order that either party to the marriage shall pay to the other such lump sum or sums as may be so specified’
 
b.  And the more relevant provision in the subject case was s23 (3) (c) MCA:- 'an order under this section for the payment of a lump sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order …’
 
2.  On divorce H wanted to sell his interests in two businesses and start life afresh, seeking as far as possible a clean break.  
H agreed a sale of his business interests in a very limited market, with stage payments reaching as far as 2028/9.  It was the best deal he could get in the circumstances.  
The parties agreed a division of the assets, including W to retain the fmh, with a small mortgage.  To equalise capital, W was to receive one half of the stage payments scheduled for 2024 and 2025.  
 
3. Under the terms of the business sale agreements, if all or part of a stage payment was not met in any particular year, then the amount outstanding was divided between the remaining stage payments due in the remaining years.  In theory therefore, part of a stage payment agreed in 2024 may not be paid until 2028/9.
 
4. An agreed order was submitted to the DJ as a lump sum order.  
 
The judge rejected that part of the order saying:-
 
‘An order is meant to be clear as to what will happen and when.  If the Respondent receives no payment in 2024 or 2025 but a big one in 2026, what happens? The payments to Respondent appear to be due to be paid in specified amounts and the uncertainty appears to be around inability of the purchaser to pay.I would prefer for the fixed dates and fixed amounts for payment to the wife with a provision that the Respondent may apply for a variation if the payments due are not received in full at the expected times.That at least places the court in the position of deciding.The clause as previously drafted is vague and inconclusive with no obvious means of resolving any dispute which may arise.’
 
5. The judge fixed a directions appointment.  At first an agreed amended version of the order was put before the judge with an alternative for the payment of the lump sum by instalments to be contained in the order by way of H’s undertakings.  The judge accepted the latter course with W’s claim for a lump sum being adjourned until all money due to W was paid.
 
Comments: 

1.  Both sub sections above use the word ‘may’ as opposed to shall.  It was submitted to the judge that meant the court did not have to specify an amount in say pounds sterling, but the section gave the court a discretion to fix the amount by reference to a formula of words or a percentage, if say the payment was contingent on an event occurring, but the value not currently being known[1].  The judge did not respond to that point.
 
2.  This case is a useful example of what was eluded to in Birch v Birch [2015] EWCA Civ 833 (CA)[2].  Mc Combe LJ said  
‘… it is a recognised process of consent orders of this type to make arrangements, by way of undertakings by one or more of the parties, for matters outside the powers of the court  under the 1973 Act. Such undertakings are “enforceable as effectively as direct orders”: see per Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in Livesey v Jenkins [1985] AC 424 at 444F – H, [1985] 1 All ER 106, [1985] 2 WLR 47. The undertakings are an essential part of the bricks and mortar with which the edifice of such financial orders are constructed.’
 
3.  Whilst the original and secondary suggested wording of the order was rejected by the judge, there is an argument that there are different ways of including a lump sum as an order eg being calculated according to a formula or percentage for example.

Click here to view Gary Fawcett's full profile

STOP PRESS : Does Boris need a non-cohabitation agreement

In a land of black BMW’s, dark suits, and the odd shock of blond Old Etonian hair … was a lad called Boris.  Separated from Marina, but not divorced, cohabiting or not with a lass called Carrie, the press wondered will he ever settle down? 

Entering the doorway of no 10 alone, his lawyers were wondering who will be our first lady?  As the glossy black door and closed and shut the world out, Boris called Adrian his trusty Counsel, ‘What do I do, do I move Carrie in?’

Adrian told him about the case of GW v RW [2003] EWHC 611, with Nicholas Mostyn QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, wherein he famously said:-

“Thus in my judgement, where a relationship moves seamlessly from cohabitation to marriage without any major alteration in the way the couple live, it is unreal and artificial to treat the periods differently”.

‘Nowadays,’ continued Adrain ‘in every case, it is almost automatic when computing the length of the marriage, to add in premarital cohabitation’.  Boris spluttered ‘It’s a good job we had that row in early July, does that put a seam in seamless?’.  ‘Boris, have you never heard of domestic violence and legal aid?’.  Boris reached for the brandy.

Adrian continued with his legal spoutings, some falling on ringing deaf ears, ‘Boris, recently in MB v EB [2019] EWHC 1649 (Fam) Cohen J had to determine the length of the marriage, and that can affect the quantum of the marital acquest, or pension entitlement.  Let me read you out a section from that case (Boris laid his phone down, taking it off loud speaker, flopped on the settee and caressed his brandy glass, a purring cat brushing endlessly against his legs).

‘This is what Mr Justice Cohen said at paragraph 50 citing from an earlier case.  

‘At paragraph 68 of IX v IY [2018] EWHC 3053 (Fam), Mr Justice Williams said this:

What the court must be looking to identify is a time at which the relationship had acquired sufficient mutuality of commitment to equate to marriage.  Of course in very many cases, possibly most cases, this will be very obviously marked by the parties' cohabiting, possibly in conjunction with the purchase of a property.  However, in other cases, and this may be one of them, it is not easy to identify.  The mere fact that parties begin to spend time in each other's homes does not of itself, it seems to me, equate to marriage.  In situations such as this the court must look to an accumulation of markers of marriage which eventually will take the relationship over the threshold into a quasi-marital relationship which may then either be added to the marriage to establish a longer marriage or becomes a weightier factor as one of the circumstances of the case’

‘So Boris, you’d better remember that the date when people start to cohabit, or cease to cohabit for that matter, can impact on the result in a financial remedy case’.  ‘But I’m not yet divorced’ spluttered Boris.  ‘I know, but we’re dealing with that’.

‘Look Boris, family practitioners are familiar with cohabitation agreements, which have a valuable place in setting out responsibilities, financial or otherwise, in a non-marital relationship.  But as the general public become more aware of the law in this area, (possibly with the knowledge that the longer the period of cohabitation the higher the potential claim) it may be important for a party or the parties to be clear when they are not cohabiting’.  ‘I see’ said Boris tipping the contents of the brandy decanter into his glass.

Adrian continued ‘I don’t pretend that such is necessarily common.  But it may be one party to a relationship wants to make it clear that cohabitation is not the status of the relationship.  As you heard from what Justice Cohen repeated, it is often easy to recognise cohabitation from a particular factor eg joint house purchase, but every case is different.  You aren’t buying no 10 are you?’.  ‘Well I hope to be here a long time’ said Boris ‘and it’s nearer Parliament than the flat!  What a good idea Adrian!’.

‘Hmmm’ mused Adrian with lifted eyebrows ‘you will remember when we wrote to Marina specifically stating the date when you both separated so she could not claim a longer period of the marriage?’  ‘Hmmm’ Boris searched his thoughts ‘… did you, I must have been busy on the campaign trail.  Did I instruct you to do that? … well must have been when I was tipping that waitress’.

‘Well Boris, you’re in the formative stage of a relationship with Carrie, well, that’s what I read in the gutter press.  She’ll be staying with you at no 10, wink wink, for extended periods of time perhaps, even Chequers, so perhaps we ought to specifically mark that you are not not cohabiting’.  I’ll get onto her lawyers to see if she’ll sign a non-cohabitation agreement, ok?’

‘Tastes good to me’ sighed Boris.  ‘What?’ demanded Adrian, ‘Sorry Adrian, lovely Remy Martin Louis XIII brandy, worth moving into no 10 for!’

‘Ok Boris, over and out’.  ‘I’m not over or out’ bawled Boris as the phone went dead.

Adrian reflected ‘There may not be many occasions when both parties want it recorded they are not cohabiting, but I’d better get on and help old mop head.  I hope Carrie agrees’.

Click here to view Gary Fawcett's full profile

Stop Press: The Spectre of Dishonesty

Dishonesty has always been that dirty word lawyers like to skirt around in litigation. There are professional obligations as to when and how its to be pleaded and, as we had previously understood, if it was not pleaded, we were unable to assert it.

ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC) alters that general perception, suggesting as to when allegations of dishonesty may be put during oral evidence. 

ATB, a bicycle designer, trading under the name “Whyte Bikes”, sought injunctive relief on grounds of copying infringement for the use of its logo by RE, an energy drinks manufacturer, on their Formula 1 Racecar and website. The logo contained a distinctive stags head drawn by ATB’s staff in 2008 within the course of their employment.

RE’s case was that its director, William Storey, the Second Defendant, had commissioned Staxoweb Ltd, a marketing company, owned by a childhood friend, the Third Defendant, to design a logo for their racing team in 2015. This same logo just happened to feature the iconic stags head.

All three defendants denied copying the image, asserting it was independently designed without knowledge of ATB’s logo (do Google both images if you get the chance – it is quite enlightening).

During the trial, ATB’s Counsel put to RE’s witnesses that their evidence had been dishonest.

During closing submissions, RE’s Counsel, cited CPR 16 PD 8.2 and Chancery Guide at 10.1 which require any allegation of fraud to be pleaded, as well as CPR 32.19(1), where parties are deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed where no express challenge to it is made. He submitted it was not open to the Court to make a finding of dishonesty on the part of the Defendants’ witnesses as RE was not put on notice of the allegation and unable to answer it before trial.

Rejecting the assertion, HHJ Mellisa Clarke held at paragraph 27 –

“As long as the facts upon which an inference of dishonesty may be based are pleaded, if evidence emerges at trial which the Claimant considers sufficient that the court might properly find dishonesty, even though it was not able to plead it before trial, it must be put to the relevant witness so that he may answer it. It is only then that a court may properly be invited to, and may make, an evidential finding that such a witness was indeed dishonest. This is part of the court's ordinary adjudicative function. In this case, the facts from which dishonesty may be inferred are clearly set out in the pleadings and arise from the cause of action. The Claimant pleads that the Defendants have copied C's Device, and the Defendants deny any familiarity with the Claimant or C's Device and deny copying it. It is for the court to sift and evaluate the evidence to determine the case. The court's hands will not be tied in the manner that the Defendants seek, by the fact that dishonesty has not been pleaded.”

Personal injury lawyers will find the case not too surprising given the line of authorities on the ability to assert an unpleaded allegation of fundamental dishonesty in order to displace qualified one-way costs shifting, most prominently in Newey LJ’s judgment in Howlett v Davies [2017] EWCA Civ 1696

The judgment is a common sense solution to the practical problem of the ever changing shape of a case, which will often alter in appearance long after pleadings have been settled. So long as a witness has the opportunity to respond to an allegation of dishonesty, properly put to them, where there is evidence of dishonesty to support a finding of the same, it may be raised despite an absence of pleading

Click here to view Barnaby Large's full profile

Stop Press: New Guidance on orders in Children cases

The President of the Family Division has published new guidance on forms of orders in children cases. Attention is drawn in particular to paragraph 9 and the drafting of first and subsequent orders.

https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/president-of-the-family-divisions-guidance-forms-of-orders-in-children-cases/

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

STOP PRESS : No.18 Welcomes Dan Fantham & Beth Miles to the Clerksroom

No18 is delighted to welcome Dan Fantham and Beth Miles to our clerks room. Dan and Beth will be working alongside Mark in ensuring the highest service is offered.

No.18 are committed to you and your clients  by working collaboratively , as part of your  team to provide a package of high quality legal advice, professional advisory services and first-rate advocacy from the first instructions to conclusion of the case. Further,  No.18 chambers are serious about providing an exceptional level of service and will always be fair regarding fees  and tailoring  to each individual case .

Our clerks have a comprehensive knowledge of each barrister’s practice and expertise, this enables them to assess you and your client’s requirements; and make suitable and appropriate barrister recommendations.

Dan Fantham (First Junior Clerk)

Dan has joined chambers with over 30 years clerking experience gained at leading sets on both the Western & Northern Circuits. He has a wealth of experience & expertise in all core areas of Chambers work combined with an in depth knowledge of the working systems of the Courts and Tribunals in England & Wales.

His primary role in Chambers is to assist and support Mark with the day to day running and maintenance of the diary and case management together with the Billing and collection of fees. Dan’s years of experience gives him the skills in identifying client needs and has an acute knowledge of the barristers’ practices.

Beth Miles - Clerking Assistant

Beth joined Chambers in June 2019 having previously worked in another local set gaining considerable knowledge of the working of Chambers. Beth will be providing outstanding support in her dual role in the Clerks' Room: assisting with the day to day diary management, smooth running of Chambers and administration.

Beth will be developing  her skills in identifying clients’ needs and an acute knowledge of the barristers’ practices and ensuring that you are offered suitable counsel.

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Amelia King (2016)

No18 Chambers are delighted to announce that Amelia King has accepted her invitation to join Chambers following the successful completion of her pupillage in April 2019. Amelia’s practice includes family law and all areas of civil law.
 
She was called to the Bar in 2016 after obtaining a ‘Very Competent’ grade on the BPTC which she studied on a part-time basis whilst working full-time as a Paralegal in a law firm. Following the BPTC she qualified as an ADR Group Accredited Civil and Commercial Mediator.
 
Prior to pupillage Amelia practised as a County Court Advocate and attended court on the Western Circuit for a variety of cases including mortgage repossessions and applications, infant settlements, Consumer Credit Act disputes and general applications under the CPR.
For more information on his practice please see her individual profile below .

Click here to view Amelia King's full profile

STOP PRESS :Judicial Appointment in Chambers

No18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Katherine Henry has been appointed as a Deputy District Judge. Katherine will sit on the Western Circuit in a part time capacity. Everyone at Chambers wishes Katie well in her new role.

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

Chambers are sorry to announce the sad passing of Chas Cochand.

Fondly recorded in the records of the Western Circuit as "the top Canadian barrister on the Western Circuit", Chas will be missed by both the profession, his Circuit and all those in Chambers.

Chas joined Chambers in 1991 with an exclusive criminal practice. He was a formidable advocate but also a kind and supportive figure, particularly to those junior members of Chambers who he sought to nurture throughout his career.

Chas always stood out. A charming man, who would regularly lighten the mood with some humour or a compliment to a colleague on a case well done, and a snappy dresser who never shied away from donning his Christmas waistcoat during the festive period.

Although he did not remain a full member of Chambers, Chas' continued support for Chambers subsisted through his maintenance of a door tenancy, a tie we were all grateful for.

Chas will be fondly remembered by all. A uniquely funny, charming and kind man

News Flash: General Damages for Methanol Exposure

Barnaby recently appeared on behalf of the Claimant in the matter of Brady v Detect Fire & Security Ltd (LTL Doc. AM0505427, December 2018).

The Claimant, an installer of fire alarms, was assigned by the Defendant, his employer, to a fitting assignment at the site of a third party, a company specialising in the manufacture and storage of contact lenses.

The Claimant was working in a room storing a number of contact lens in vats containing a mixture of ethanol and methanol (‘the clean room’). Although the Claimant was provided with protective clothing, this did not include breathing apparatus or a face mask.

Whilst positioned on a ladder in the clean room over one of the vats, the Claimant began to feel extremely unwell, experiencing severe stomach pains, profuse sweating, light-headedness and confusion.

The Claimant descended the ladder and drove himself to hospital accident and emergency where he was diagnosed with acute methanol poisoning. He developed severe stomach cramps associated with pain and vomiting with a pain score of 7 out of 10 which was at its worst for the first 24 hours following the incident. He was discharged from hospital a following day after admission.

The Claimant completely recovered from stomach cramps, pain and vomiting within a further two days. His dizziness and light headaches had fully resolved within 48 hours of the incident and confusion within 12 hours. He was unable to work or attend the gym for 72 hours after the incident.

The Court, when considering the issue of general damages, noting the absence of suitable comparable cases on the point awarded £1,200, having in mind the JC Guidelines pertaining to Chapter 6(G)(b)(iv) pertaining to varying degrees of disabling pain, cramps and diarrhoea continuing for some days or weeks.

Stop Press :Simplistic Pensions Overview.

In trying to make a topic simple but informative, some detail is necessarily lost.  And remember, in law, there is the general rule, and then there are always exceptions to it!

Pensions can come from three sources:-

1)  State (OAP and employees of the state e.g. police, judges!),

2)  Employers, and

3) Individuals.

The types of schemes can be generally divided into the following:-

1)  Defined contribution

2)  Defined benefit, 

3)  Sometimes a hybrid of the two.

Defined contribution schemes: 

Money is paid regularly into a policy and units are bought in an investment fund, providing a monetary value available at retirement.  25% can be usually taken as a tax free lump sum; historically an annuity was bought with the balance, but that is now less popular.  The funds can now be held in drawdown and taken subject to paying tax on anything taken above the 25% tax free limit.

Defined benefit: 

The terminal benefit will be an actual amount or, more often determined according to a formula, e.g. a proportion of salary dependant on number of years worked, more latterly though, career average earnings are used, not final salary. 

Such schemes are either

1)  State e.g. nhs, teachers, armed forces, or

2 ) Provided by employers. 

State pensions are unfunded i.e. no fund set aside to pay pensions but paid out of future taxes and members contributions.  On pension share the non spouse cannot transfer out of the scheme. 

Employers pensions are either funded or unfunded.  Money can be transferred out by a non member under a sharing order, because funds are there to support the withdrawal.

A few words about personal pension schemes:

The simplest form of personal pension scheme is where regular contributions are made to   a pension scheme and units are bought in a managed fund. 

Self administered pension schemes can present difficulties in pension sharing especially where the member invests in property, which can cause valuation problems, and funds are not liquid.  If there is a transfer within the scheme then legislation provides for each member has to be a trustee, which a transferring spouse may resist as it maintains a nexus between divorcing spouses.  A loan of up to 50% of the property value can be obtained against the property to free funds.  But if the property is part of an income producing business, it may not be an easy or desirable route.

Stakeholder pensions are a form of defined contribution personal pension. They have low and flexible minimum contributions, and capped charges. Some employers offer them or you can start one yourself without being employed (there are restrictions, contributions are limited).  Guaranteed Annuity Options schemes and Retirement Annuity Contracts schemes, are not offered  these days but you may come across one started years ago.

Click here to view Gary Fawcett's full profile

No.18 Barristers Chambers Sponsor The Hampshire Law Society Annual Dinner 2019

No.18 Barristers Chambers are delighted announce we are supporting The Hampshire Law Society Annual Dinner on the 6th June 2019.

The evening will take place at the prestigious Hilton at the Ageas Bowl.  With Pre-dinner drinks being served followed by  a sumptuous 3 course meal prior to the entertainment, the after dinner speaker (Great Britain’s first Olympic Ski Jumper Eddie ‘The Eagle’ Edwards)and presentation of the Legal Awards 2019.

For more details please see www.hampshirelawsociety.co.uk

Stop Press :Simplistic Pensions Overview.

In trying to make a topic simple but informative, some detail is necessarily lost.  And remember, in law, there is the general rule, and then there are always exceptions to it!

Pensions can come from three sources:-

1)  State (OAP and employees of the state e.g. police, judges!),

2)  Employers, and

3) Individuals.

The types of schemes can be generally divided into the following:-

1)  Defined contribution

2)  Defined benefit, 

3)  Sometimes a hybrid of the two.

Defined contribution schemes: 

Money is paid regularly into a policy and units are bought in an investment fund, providing a monetary value available at retirement.  25% can be usually taken as a tax free lump sum; historically an annuity was bought with the balance, but that is now less popular.  The funds can now be held in drawdown and taken subject to paying tax on anything taken above the 25% tax free limit.

Defined benefit: 

The terminal benefit will be an actual amount or, more often determined according to a formula, e.g. a proportion of salary dependant on number of years worked, more latterly though, career average earnings are used, not final salary. 

Such schemes are either

1)  State e.g. nhs, teachers, armed forces, or

2 ) Provided by employers. 

State pensions are unfunded i.e. no fund set aside to pay pensions but paid out of future taxes and members contributions.  On pension share the non spouse cannot transfer out of the scheme. 

Employers pensions are either funded or unfunded.  Money can be transferred out by a non member under a sharing order, because funds are there to support the withdrawal.

A few words about personal pension schemes:

The simplest form of personal pension scheme is where regular contributions are made to   a pension scheme and units are bought in a managed fund. 

Self administered pension schemes can present difficulties in pension sharing especially where the member invests in property, which can cause valuation problems, and funds are not liquid.  If there is a transfer within the scheme then legislation provides for each member has to be a trustee, which a transferring spouse may resist as it maintains a nexus between divorcing spouses.  A loan of up to 50% of the property value can be obtained against the property to free funds.  But if the property is part of an income producing business, it may not be an easy or desirable route.

Stakeholder pensions are a form of defined contribution personal pension. They have low and flexible minimum contributions, and capped charges. Some employers offer them or you can start one yourself without being employed (there are restrictions, contributions are limited).  Guaranteed Annuity Options schemes and Retirement Annuity Contracts schemes, are not offered  these days but you may come across one started years ago.

Click here to view Gary Fawcett's full profile

NEWS FLASH : Disclosure in the Family court

Further to my recent short article re slow disclosure of medical records under DPA/GDPR, the provisions of s31G of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 are also of relevance (inserted by the C and C Act 2013). 

For some reason, the section is not reproduced in my Red Book 2018 in the MFPA 1984 section, but reads as follows:-

31G  Witnesses and evidence

 

(1)  Subsection (2) applies where the family court is satisfied that a person in England and Wales is likely to be able to give material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, in proceedings in the court.

 

(2)  The court may, if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, issue a summons

 

(a)  requiring the person to attend before the court, at the time and place specified in the summons, to give evidence,

 

(b)  requiring the person to attend before the court, at the time and place specified in the summons, to produce the document or thing, or

 

(c)  requiring the person to produce the document or thing to the court.

The section was considered by Sir James Munby (sitting as High Court Judge) In the matter of Re H [2018] EWFC 61, wherein he said:-

  1. It is also clear that the family court can, if this is necessary to enable it to dispose of the proceedings before it justly and fairly, make an order requiring the third party decision maker, or an individual specified by the family court for the purpose, to disclose relevant documents or to give evidence (see further, paragraph 38 below) (GF’s note - this refers to the mandatory wording of para 7.4 Police protocol - "The police and the CPS will comply with any court order."). The jurisdiction to make such an order is quite plainly conferred by section 31G of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, to which Mr Day referred me, and there is nothing, whether in section 31G itself, or in the provisions of the Family Procedure Rules, or in the case-law or in principle, to exonerate the police, the CPS or any other public agency or authority from the reach of section 31G. Section 31G goes to the power of the court to make an order for the disclosure of documents or the giving of evidence; it does not, I emphasise, empower the court to disregard the principle that although the court can demand an explanation it cannot require the third party to justify its decision.

Re H is also interesting because it provided an opportunity for Sir James to examine the limits of the Family Courts powers in connection with any Crown Court proceedings running in parallel or other agencies or authorities.

Click here to view Gary Fawcett's full profile

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Tracey Hennessey will be speaking to the Junior Lawyers Division(South Hampshire) about Chasing your career goals

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Tracey Hennessey will be speaking to the Junior Lawyers Division(South Hampshire)  about Chasing your career goals

No.18 are delighted to announce that Tracey Hennessey (2001) will be joining the Juniors Lawyers Division (South Hampshire) panel discussion  together with Kath Shimmin (Partner and Gender Equality Champion at Blake Morgan), Mary Siddall (Employment Law Consultant and Mediator at ADR Group) and Azmi Quarishe (Magistrate and Solicitor at Hampshire County Council) on  Wednesday 16 January 2019 at 6.30pm

The  panel will cover a number of topics including their careers and experiences in the legal profession, how junior lawyers can achieve their career goals and what differences junior lawyers can make to gender equality in the profession.

Full details of the programme are on the attached booking form and we hope to see as many of you there as possible

For further details contact the Committee oncommittee.shjld@gmail.com, alternatively please do not hesitate to contact us in chambers

Click here to view Tracey Hennessey's full profile

News Flash :Slow disclosure of medical records under DPA /GDPR

In a recent care case, medical records of one of a later joined party was requested from her GP by the her solicitor with appropriate authority.  The GP replied that under GDPR they were entitled to 42 days within which to respond.  The mental health of the party was in question, and the proceedings were delayed (there were other minor reasons for delay too).

S54 DPA 2018  states Meaning of “applicable time period” is as follows:-

(1)  This section defines “the applicable time period” for the purposes of sections 45(3)(b) and 48(2)(b).

(2)  “The applicable time period” means the period of 1 month, or such longer period as may be specified in regulations, beginning with the relevant time.

S45 refers to the right of access by the subject, and S 48 refers to informing of the grant or refusal.

In the current case the GP stated 42 days but I can find no reference to 42 days in either the act or  the EU directive, or other regulation, but 28/42 days may be a delay too long in any event.

FPR provides some guidance as to disclosure.  (Formerly subpoena ad duces tecum) FPR 24.2 (1) reads:-

Witness summonses

24.2.—(1) A witness summons is a document issued by the court requiring a witness to—

(a)  attend court to give evidence; or

(b)  produce documents to the court.

Rule 24.3 et seq recite the procedure etc

See also FPR 21.2 (derived from CPR 1998 r31.17).  It is of relevance, but note the words in bold, it reads:-

21.2.—(1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure by a person who is not a party to the proceedings.

(2) The application—

(a)  may be made without notice; and

(b)  must be supported by evidence.

(3)  The court may make an order under this rule only where disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the proceedings or to save costs.

(See also the helpful footnotes to r21 & 24 in the Red Book, and including SCA 1981 s 34)

If medical records are needed quickly, especially if there is a listed hearing approaching, an application pursuant to FPR r24 may be useful.  Whilst most GP’s or their practice manager would not want to go to court, the above may be a useful sledge hammer to crack the nut, and disclosure may be produced before any ordered date to avoid court attendance, the order being suitably worded for that eventuality. 

In my experience busy GP’s have always been slow in producing medical records, the excuse being resources.  But CA s1 (2) states delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child and that has to be remembered.  The alternative of reciting a preamble in the order that the judge requests disclosure by a certain date may not have the same desired effect.

Click here to view Gary Fawcett's full profile

No.18 Chambers are delighted to welcome our new Junior Clerk Christine MacFarlane

No.18 Chambers are delighted to welcome our new Junior Clerk Rebecca Burns . Christine became a clerk in Chambers in August 2018 . Her principal responsibility is the day to day running and maintenance of the diary and case management; together with the collection and negotiation of fees.

Christine has developed skills in identifying client needs. She is gaining acute knowledge of the barristers’ practices and is always available to ensure that you are offered suitable counsel.

Christine has a dual role in the Clerks' Room: assisting with the day to day diary management, smooth running of Chambers and marketing initiatives.

Outside work, Christine enjoys dog walking, the gym and family.

Stop Press :No.18 Barristers Chambers increases recognition in the annual Legal 500 rankings

No.18 Barrister Chambers are delighted to announce we have increased our 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, Personal Injury and Public Law (particularly Immigration). Furthermore, four barristers have been individually acknowledged in the "Leading Juniors" list for their work in Family law & Children, Immigration and Employment.


Legal 500 Overview:

No.18 Barristers Chambers houses approachable barristers, who have particular expertise in Family work, with other notable strengths including personal injury, employment and public law, with immigration matters prominent in the case of the latter. The clerks are always on-hand to assist, and senior clerk Mark Windebank leads an ‘excellent’ team.

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

No.18 Barristers Chambers strength in family has seen an ‘uptick in complex private law children work regarding care, placement and adoption proceedings. Matrimonial finance is another core area of expertise’. (2018)


Lee Young  (1991): ‘Steadfast and committed to his cases (2018) Professional, reliable, and conscientious(2017)’ ‘A reliable barrister, who gets results’ (2016).

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): Very experienced in a broad range of family law matters’ (2018)  ‘He thinks outside the box to conceive new ideas’ (2017) ’... a real passion for the work he undertakes.’ (2016)

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 Intervenor’s.

Nigel also has a strong practice in matrimonial finance and property disputes and frequently attends all hearings during the course of proceedings including MPS applications, final hearings and enforcement at all levels.  In addition he is regularly asked to advise on complex matters of both matrimonial finance including Barder appeals

Laura Baines (2007): ‘She is quick to grasp the essence of a case.’(2018)

Laura has acted for the local authority, parents and Guardians as well as the children themselves in public law family matters. Laura accepts instructions in all public family law matters and has undertaken a range of hearings, most recently appearing in the High Court. She frequently appears in interim fact finding and final hearings involving care and supervision orders, section 8 orders, injunctions and matters of jurisdiction.

Laura also accepts instructions in all private law children matters and has undertaken a range of hearings involving child arrangement orders, specific issue and prohibited steps orders involving preventing taking the child out of the jurisdiction. Laura represents fathers and mothers as well as the children when the need has arisen for their separate representation. Laura has experience in dealing with private law children matters relating to forces personnel.

Employment : (Western Circuit - Leading juniors)

Ian Wheaton is head of the employment team at No.18 Barristers Chambers; recent instructions for the group include discrimination and unfair and wrongful dismissal cases.(2018)


Ian Wheaton (2002) : ‘A flexible and approachable barrister’(2018) ‘Very experienced in discrimination cases’ (2017) ‘A strong advocate, who is quick on his feet and robust with opponents.’(2016)

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.

Immigration (Western Circuit - Leading juniors)

Laura Baines at No.18 Barristers Chambers has established expertise in immigration cases, in which she is well known for representing both appellants and the Home Office (2018)

Laura Baines (2007): Very experienced in immigration and asylum matters.’ (2018) ‘Recommended for immigration cases’ (2017)

 

Laura has a dual practice of both Family & Immigration, which allows her to advise in family cases where there are complex immigration issues. Laura frequently appears in the first tier and upper tribunals in relation to immigration and asylum matters. She conducts a range of preliminary, final hearings and judicial reviews, having acted for both the Home Office and the Appellant. This gives her an advantage when advising clients as to the appropriate course of action. Laura in particular has had conduct of tier 1, tier 2, tier 4 points based system applications, article 8 applications, EU applications, trafficking cases, asylums from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Trinidad. Laura is happy to provide written advice and draft pleadings such as grounds of appeal for first tier tribunal appeals, upper tribunal appeals and judicial reviews.

Notable cases: IA/28304/2013, where IJ Robinson found the Home Office failed to prove the general ground of refusal under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules. The Judge took the view that the evidence produced by the Home Office to show that the academic certificate submitted by the Appellant in support of his application for leave to remain was inadequate

No.18 Chambers are delighted to announce Claire Hook's re-appointment on the South Hampshire Junior Lawyers Division Committee

No.18 Chambers are delighted to announce Claire Hook's re-appointment on to the South Hampshire Junior Lawyers Division Committee for another year. Claire will be sharing the  roles of both Bar Representative & Events Representative.

STOP PRESS: New guidance on children orders have been issued along with changes to PD27A

On 6th June 2018, the President of the Family Division issued guidance promulgating standard children and other orders for general use. Shorter Public and Private Law Case Management directions orders have been produced to assist those at court. Helpfully such orders have been colour coded, showing sections of amendment and editorial comment.

For the President’s guidance and the zip file containing the orders, click below:

https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/practice-guidance-standard-children-and-other-orders/

In addition, there is a new practice direction on bundles which will come into force on 23rd July 2018. Such practice direction should be read in conjunction with the Public Law Outline (PD12A) and Child Arrangements programme (PD12B).

The three main changes are-

  1.  - Introduction of page limits for certain types of documents
  2.  - Further requirements in relation to bundles of authorities
  3.  - The inclusion of various provisions making clear that PD27A applies, with certain modifications, to electronic as well as to paper bundles.

For more information, on the revised practice direction, click below:

https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/draft-revised-practice-direction-27a-family-proceedings-court-bundles-universal-practice-to-be-applied-in-the-high-court-and-family-court#.WywdyS2ZNmA

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

STOP PRESS : Proceedings concerning parents with a learning disability

On 10th April 2018, Sir James Munby issued guidance in relation to parents with a learning disability. The purpose of this ‘is to bring to the attention of practitioners and judges, and to commend for careful consideration and application by everyone, the very important “Good practice guidance on working with parents with a learning disability” issued by the Working Together with Parents Network and the Norah Fry Centre in September 2016’.

The guidance highlights recent case law (Re D (Non-Availability of Legal Aid) (No 2) [2015] EWFC 2, [2015] 1 FLR 1247, and again in Re D (Adoption) (No 3) [2016] EWFC 1, [2017] 1 FLR 237) and the Family Procedure Rules Part 3A and PD3AA.

For the President’s guidance, click below

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/family-proceedings-parents-with-a-learning-disability/

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

No.18 Chambers are delighted to welcome our new Junior Clerk Laura Hepburn

No.18 Chambers are delighted to welcome our new Junior Clerk Laura Hepburn . Laura became a clerk in Chambers in April 2018 whilst studying part-time for her Law degree.  Her principal responsibility will be assisting Mark and Rebecca with the day to day running and maintenance of the diary and case management; together with fee collection

Laura  will be developing her skills in identifying client needs, together with her acute knowledge of the barristers’ practices and will always be available to ensure that you are offered suitable counsel.

Laura will have a dual role in the Clerks' Room: assisting with the day to day diary management, smooth running of Chambers and administrtaion. Outside work, Laura enjoys socialising and spending time with her Friends and Family

No.18 proud to be walking in the Southampton Legal Walk for third 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 25th June 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

http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/No18Chambers

Hope to see you along the route..

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – John Franklin (2016)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that John Franklin (2016) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers following the successful completion of his Pupillage .  John will be joining our Civil &  Family team.

John joined chambers following successful completion of his pupillage in April 2018. John enjoys an extensive oral and written practice encompassing all aspects of civil and family law. John previously served as an engineer in the Royal Navy where he gained graduate and postgraduate science and engineering qualifications and became professionally registered as an Incorporated Engineer.   John converted to law in 2014 and gained a distinction for his Graduate Diploma in Law before going on to complete BPTC in 2016. He continued to study part-time throughout pupillage and is in the latter stages of the LPC MSc in Law, Business and Management.

His continuing studies have not only augmented his considerable legal knowledge and skills but also helped to consolidate many aspects of his practical training during pupillage. It also helped to provide with a unique insight into the business needs and practices of his instructing solicitors.

Before attaining pupillage, John worked as a solicitor’s agent appearing regularly in commercial, personal injury and housing matters.

Click here to view John Franklin's full profile

No.18 Chambers welcomes New Pupil Amelia King

No.18 Chambers is delighted to welcome Amelia King .Amelia is to join Chambers as a pupil in April 2018. She was called to the Bar in 2016 after obtaining a ‘Very Competent’ grade on the BPTC which she studied on a part-time basis whilst working full-time as a Paralegal in a law firm. Following the BPTC she qualified as an ADR Group Accredited Civil and Commercial Mediator. Prior to pupillage Amelia practised as a County Court Advocate and attended court on the Western Circuit for a variety of cases including mortgage repossessions and applications, infant settlements, Consumer Credit Act disputes and general applications under the CPR.

Click here to view Amelia King's full profile

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Tenant – Sara Chalk (2018)

No.18 Chambers is delighted to announce that Sara Chalk (2018) has accepted an invitation to join Chambers and will be available for work from the 26th March 2018 .  Sara will be joining our Family team.

Sara transferred to the Bar in 2018 from her role as a Legal Executive Advocate working in private practice. Before being called to the Bar, Sara worked in private practice for 10 years dealing with a range of matters including conveyancing, wills and probate, crime and family matters. In addition to working in private practice, Sara has worked in-house for a Local Authority undertaking litigation and advocacy relating to public law children matters. Sara has spent the last 8 years specialising in family matters which is something she really enjoys and this is the key focus of her practice. Sara is well known on the Western Circuit. Sara has extensive experience of dealing with vulnerable clients and is known for her conscientiousness, empathy and work ethic

Click here to view Sara Chalk's full profile

STOP PRESS: Restrictive Covenants in Employment Contracts

Every business has information that is confidential and is vital to both their success and operation, whether that be knowledge of your business clients/customers with whom they became connected , internal processes, business strategies or technology. For any competitor in your market this information can be attractive and may help to gain a competitive edge. Certain employees may have such information and, in these situations, the most effective way to protect your business would be via a restrictive covenant.

This is usually a clause in an employee’s contract that is designed to help protect your business  against the use of its confidential information by former employees. This may deter employees from joining competitor and competing against their ex-employer or competitors from poaching your staff.

The attached article gives a brief overview of;

  • The four main types of Restrictive Covenants:
  • What Are Restrictive Covenants There To Protect?
  • Implied terms of confidentiality
  • When Was the Covenant Entered Into?
  • Varying Contracts Of Employment To Include A Restrictive Covenant
  • How Long will the Covenant be valid for?

Click here to download the Notes

Should you have  any queries or questions resulting from the notes, or just want to simply pick Ian’s brain .  Please feel free to contact him either by e-mail on ianwheaton@no18chambers.com or by calling him in Chambers on  02380 736812

Click here to view Ian Wheaton's full profile

No.18 Barristers Chambers Sponsor The Hampshire Law Society Annual Dinner

No.18 Barristers Chambers are delighted announce we are supporting The Hampshire Law Society Annual Dinner on the 17th May 2018.

The evening will take place at the prestigious Hilton at the Ageas Bowl.  With Pre-dinner drinks being served  and the opportunity to do some beer tasting from a local micro brewery and Hampshire food producers. This will be followed by  a sumptuous 3 course meal prior to the entertainment, the after dinner speaker (BBC presenter and naturist Chris Packham )and presentation of the Legal Awards 2017.

For more details please see www.hampshirelawsociety.co.uk

No.18 Chambers Welcomes New Junior Clerk: Rebecca Burns

No.18 Chambers are delighted to welcome our new Junior Clerk Rebecca Burns . Rebecca became a clerk in Chambers in January 2018 after achieving an Upper Second Class BSc (Hons) Degree in Natural Sciences, majoring in Mathematics and Biology.  Her principal responsibility will be the day to day running and maintenance of the diary and case management; together with fee negotiation.

Rebecca will be developing her skills in identifying client needs, together with her acute knowledge of the barristers’ practices and will always be available to ensure that you are offered suitable counsel.

Rebecca will have a dual role in the Clerks' Room: assisting with the day to day diary management, smooth running of Chambers and marketing initiatives. Outside work, Rebecca enjoys netball, cycling and listening to Taylor Swift.

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.

Click here to view Claire Hook's full profile

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.

Click here to view Tracey Hennessey's full profile

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

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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 

Click here to view Barnaby Large's full profile

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

Click here to view Tracey Hennessey's full profile

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?

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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 

Click here to view Barnaby Large's full profile

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. 

Click here to view Barnaby Large's full profile

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

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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.

Click here to view Robin Shane's full profile

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.

Click here to view Ian Wheaton, Lee Young, Nigel Cholerton's full profile

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.

Click here to view Sarah Hirech's full profile

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.

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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.

Click here to view Helen Nugent's full profile

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.

Click here to view Helen Nugent's full profile

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

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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.

Click here to view Shannon Revel's full profile

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.

Click here to view Shannon Revel's full profile

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)

Click here to view James Vatcher's full profile

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.

Click here to view James Vatcher's full profile

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.

Click here to view Shannon Revel's full profile

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.

Click here to view Tracey Hennessey's full profile

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 .

Click here to view Tracey Hennessey's full profile

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).

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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

Click here to view Shannon Revel's full profile

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

Click here to view Laura Baines's full profile

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).

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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.

Click here to view Barnaby Large, Helen Nugent's full profile

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.

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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.

Click here to view Helen Nugent's full profile

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.

Click here to view Katherine Henry's full profile

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.

Click here to view Lee Young's full profile

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.


 

Past Events & Seminars


No 18 Chambers Summer Celebrations

Event Start date: Friday 12th July 2019 - From: 6.00pm - To: Onwards

We would be delighted if you could come along on the 12th July 2019 to help us celebrate Katherine Henry being appointed a Deputy District Judge and Amelia King becoming our latest tenant. We will be at the roof top bar at Revolutions, Southampton, 28a Bedford Place ,Southampton SO15 2DB 6pm onwards for cocktails, fizz and canapés.


Private Law Children & Matrimonial Finance Conference 2019

Seminar Start date: Thursday 13th June 2019 - From: 9:15 - To: 4:30

Our Private Law Children & Matrimonial Finance Conference 2019 is aimed at those currently practicing 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 13th June 2019 at Double Tree by Hilton, Bracken Place, Chilworth SO16 3NG.


Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Seminar

Seminar Start date: Thursday 9th May 2019

No.18 are delighted to announce that  Barnaby Large (2007) Francis Payne & John Franklin (2016) are speaking at The Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Seminar on the 9th May 2017. 


Barnaby Large (2007) :  “A Tactical Guide for Employees in Receipt of a Bad Reference”

“Barnaby will be exploring the options available to employees who receive a negative reference both prior to and following receipt by a new employer.

The seminar will consider a brief summary of the current law concerning the topic, steps to try to resolve a dispute without litigation and building a case for trial.”


Francis Payne (2014) :  Possessions

“S36 Admin Justice Act 1970 – does it apply following the expiration of a mortgage term?”    

This seminar will consider briefly the law relating to possession proceedings, whether the court can adjourn/stay/suspend a possession in circumstances where the mortgage term has expired (with reference to LBI HF v Stanford [2015] EWHC 3131) and what steps can be taken by Defendants in order to persuade the court to exercise such its discretion.   


John Franklin (2016): Anonymity Orders and Human Rights

 In Justyna Zeromska-Smith v United Lincoln Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 552 (QB),  Spencer J gave insightful guidance on anonymity orders in civil proceedings.

The starting position for civil proceedings remains one of openness, enabling the public to know what is going on and who is involved in a case.  Spencer J’s judgment was notable from a human rights perspective as it recognised the range of Article 10 not only protecting the freedom of the press to report on what they want, but also as protecting journalistic style.

John Franklin examines the issues.


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


Christmas Drinks Evening 2018

Event Start date: Thursday 6th December 2018 - 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 6th December 2018, 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.


Save the Date : No 18’s Chambers 70th Birthday Celebrations

Event Start date: Friday 7th September 2018

This year see’s the Celebration of No.18 Chambers 70th Year. To celebrate we will be holding a party which we hope you and your partners will all attend to celebrate with us.  Keep your eye on our website and mailshots as the date will be released very soon..!!!


Dorset Resolution Seminar Family Law Update (in Conjunction with No18 Chambers)

Seminar Start date: Monday 2nd July 2018 - From: Registration: 12:45 for a 1pm start to include lunch

No.18 are delighted to announce that Ian Wheaton (2002), Nigel Cholerton (2007), Katherine Henry (2008) & Robin Shane (2012) are speaking at The Dorset Resolution Family Law Update on the 2nd July 2018.  

Ian Wheaton (2002) : Ian will discussing “A consideration of equality, needs and the overreaching principle with reference to the new flb guidance”

Nigel Cholerton (2007) :  Nigel will be presenting  “Relocation - Case Law and its effect "

Katherine Henry (2008): Katherine will be looking at “Vulnerable witness’s in context of pd12j”

Robin Shane (2012) : Robin will be considering Emergency Remedies within Family Law

Full details of the programme are on the attached booking form and we hope to see as many of you there as possible

For further details contact Jane Porter at Dorset Resolution , alternatively please do not hesitate to contact us in chambers


Matrimonial Finance / Trust of Land Conference 2018

Seminar Start date: Friday 22nd June 2018 - From: 9:15 am - To: 4.00pm

Our Matrimonial Finance/Trust of Land Conference 2018 is aimed at all who are currently practicing in all aspects of Matrimonial Finance including families exist outside of the more traditional model of marriage (and civil partnership), 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 22nd June 2018 at Double Tree by Hilton, Bracken Place, Chilworth SO16 3NG.


Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Seminar

Seminar Start date: Tuesday 8th May 2018 - From: From 2pm

No.18 are delighted to announce that Ian Wheaton (2002), Barnaby Large (2007) & John Franklin (2016) are speaking at The Hampshire Law Society Civil Litigation Seminar on the 9th May 2017.  

Ian Wheaton (2002) : Ian will be looking at an update on Qualified One Way Cost Shifting

Barney Large (2007) :  Barnaby will be presenting "Compromising Litigation - An Overview"

John Franklin (2016): John will be considering 'Findings of fundamental dishonesty'

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


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


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


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