Blog
What is your duty to co-operate with your regulator?
Zoe Beels
The ethical and legal issues surrounding surrogacy have hit the headlines over the last few weeks as a result of the comments of Mr Justice Hedley on 19 May, who highlighted the difficulties he faced when asked to give retrospective judicial authority to commercial surrogacy arrangements made abroad. He said that Judges were focusing on the best interests of children born to a surrogate but he pointed out there was a tension between the interpretation of statute and the welfare of the surrogate child.
If ever a reminder were needed about the wide ranging powers and discretion of the English court in divorce proceedings, it came yesterday in the Judgment given by the Court of Appeal in the case of Whaley.
WHSmith (WHS) has announced plans to provide ‘in-store’ legal advice which is likely to include family law. The backdrop is the implementation of the Legal Services Act which comes into effect in October. This seeks to de-regulate the provision of legal services which will no longer be the preserve of traditional law firms and so ‘alternative business structures’ will be licensed to provide legal services. WHS (in common with others e.g. Tesco) plan to offer legal advice in conjunction with new businesses set up for the purpose e.g. QualitySolicitors (a franchise of small rebranded law firms).
The Court of Appeal have upheld an award of £2.8 million to a 27 year old wife after a two year marriage. Both parties are Russian and lived in a £4 million property in Kensington. The husband is 26 and the parties have a two year old daughter. The husband contested the lower Court’s decision on the basis it was disproportionate to the length of the marriage, the majority of his wealth emanated from his parents and the English Courts had no jurisdiction.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility