How can I tell if the correct procedure was followed when the Will was executed?

Common law marriage is a term coined by the media for couples who have decided to live together but not marry. There is a common misconception that once a certain amount of time has passed in these circumstances, the couple will have rights to claim against each other’s assets in the event of a breakdown of the relationship but this is not the case. Unmarried couples have very limited claims against each other, and those relate to where children are involved (maintenance through the Child Maintenance Service and maintenance and capital claims through Schedule 1 of the Children Act) and properties. The latter is covered by complex Trust Law and can involve costly litigation through the Civil Court.

It is, therefore, extremely important to consider taking legal advice if you are moving in with your partner as you may wish to enter in to a Cohabitation Agreement or Trust Deed to ensure you have an interest in the property in the event of a breakdown, especially if you are making contributions to it. A Cohabitation Agreement can also set out what will happen in the event of a breakdown e.g. who will be able to live in the property and how long the other person will have until they have to leave. An agreement whilst together is better than trying to reach one apart, it can save time, heartbreak and costs if that relationship ends.

Directors of a company that is in, or potentially facing, financial difficulty have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Failure to comply with that duty can have consequences for directors (including personal liability and disqualification if directors get it wrong).

The duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole begins when the company is (or in some cases is potentially or at risk of becoming) insolvent i.e. its assets are worth less than its liabilities and/or the business is unable to pay its liabilities as and when they fall due. However, just because a company is insolvent doesn’t always necessarily mean than an insolvency process is inevitable. Sometimes, the insolvency might just be caused by a temporary cashflow problem or perhaps wider problems in the business that can be overcome by making changes to the business itself.

In addition to that, the potential liability of directors ramps up even further when the company reaches the stage that the directors have concluded (or ought to have concluded) that there was no reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration. If the business reaches that stage, in addition to having to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, directors can find themselves personally liable unless, from the time the directors ought to have reached that conclusion, they took every step that they ought to have done to minimise the loss to creditors. This is known as wrongful trading.

On the 25th June 2020, the government introduced new legislation – the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 – which includes measures to temporarily relax the rules around wrongful trading with the proposed changes to take effect retrospectively from the 1st March 2020. Essentially, the changes say that any court looking at a potential wrongful trading claim against a director is to assume that the director is not responsible for worsening the company’s financial position between 1st March 2020 and the 30th September 2020. Whilst the wrongful trading rules have relaxed, directors still need to proceed with caution if the business is potentially insolvent as the new Act does alter other potential pitfalls for directors, like the risk of breaching their duties or allowing the company to enter into transactions that can potentially be challenged.

The support being offered by the government is potentially a lifeline for businesses under pressure through no fault of their own, but notwithstanding the recent changes to the wrongful trading rules it is still likely to be important for the board to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to make use of the loans, grants and tax forbearance that are on offer.

Exactly what the board should consider will vary from business to business and getting it right can sometimes involve balancing several different (and at times conflicting) priorities, challenges and concerns.

No. Before continuing any negotiations, you need to strongly consider whether now is the best time to settle. There is a myriad of uncertainty due to the pandemic, with unemployment rates increasing, volatility in the stock markets and difficulties regarding placing valuations on assets. This could all lead to the financial settlement being unfair to you and cause you financial difficulties in the future.

Any financial settlements reached following marital separation should be embodied in to a Court Order, to prevent future claims from your ex-spouse. As a general principle, although maintenance orders are always variable, financial orders in respect of capital (e.g. house, cash, investments, pensions) are final and it is very difficult to set aside a Court Order. The question will be whether or not the pandemic is judged as a Barder event, which broadly means something viewed as unforeseen. It would be challenging for you to argue that the effects of COVID-19 are unforeseen given the widespread expectation of an economic crisis. The Court previously found against a husband who wanted to revisit an Order that he said was unaffordable following the 2008 financial crisis, with one Judge commenting that a 90% drop in the Husband’s share price was a “natural process of price fluctuation”.

Even if you informally agree a settlement with your ex-spouse, and you do not have this reflected in a Court Order, your ex-spouse may still rely on this agreement within future Court proceedings and argue that you should be held to it.

It is, therefore, very dangerous to be reaching any financial settlements at this time with your ex-spouse without careful consideration and legal advice. Further, even if an agreement is reached, market volatility can mean longer implementation times, especially when a settlement relies on the sale of property.

Many policies will only provide business interruption cover if it arises from property damage. The FCA has acknowledged that insurers are entitled to reject claims in relation to such policies, notwithstanding the success of the FCA’s test case in the Supreme Court, and which was generally favourable to policyholders [Insert a link here to our update on the test case]. In other cases the policy wording will be less clear and businesses may legitimately feel that their insurer is wrongly withholding payment.

One route of challenge to an insurer’s decision is via one of the well-publicised class actions. Another route of challenge is by a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This service is open to consumers and small and medium-sized businesses, ‘micro-enterprises’, charities and trusts. The service will be an attractive option for many businesses, as it is free and relatively quick (although it remains to be seen how the service keeps up with an increase in demand as a result of the pandemic). You will need to have complained to your insurer before bringing a complaint with the FOS.

Further details can be found here.

Certain criteria need to be met to divorce in England and Wales. These criteria are generally based on where each party lives or is domiciled and how long they have lived in England and Wales. If you ex lives abroad, the more common grounds used are:

1. That you were both last “habitually resident” in England and Wales and one continues to reside here
2. That you are “habitually resident” in England and Wales and have resided here for at least one year immediately before applying for a divorce
3. That you are “domiciled” and “habitually resident” in England and Wales and have resided there for at least six months immediately before applying for a divorce
4. That you are “domiciled” in England and Wales

The test for whether you are “habitually resident” or “domiciled” for the requisite period of time can be quite fact specific so it is always best to seek legal advice.

If you meet the eligibility and start proceedings here, your ex may start competing proceedings abroad. In those circumstances, the court will consider where is most “convenient” and if the courts where you ex lives are found to be more convenient, it will stop the proceedings here. Convenience is fact specific but by way of example, if all of your assets are located in the country your ex resides in, it may be more convenient to base the proceedings there for ease of enforcing financial orders.