Can I keep the dog if I get divorced?
Dogs and other pets are often seen as a much loved member of the family but sadly when it comes to divorce, in the eyes of the law a pet falls into the same category as a TV or a toaster as nothing more than a person’s personal property. As such the court is likely to be more interested in who owns the dog by considering factors such as:
- who paid for the dog (ideally backed up with receipts)
- who is registered at the vet
- who is listed on the microchip database, and
- who is the provider of key supplies and food
This person is more likely to have a successful claim over the dog, even if the other party has a better emotional attachment and spent more time looking after the dog.
If it is unclear who owns the dog, a sympathetic judge may consider who is best placed to look after the dog but parties should be prepared for a fairly rough and ready decision. The court is often reluctant to deal with disputes such as pet ownership as it is more concerned with the bigger picture such as arrangements for the children and the overall financial division. It is therefore far preferable for the parties to reach an agreement themselves, perhaps with the assistance of mediation.
Read our recent article to find out more.
Related FAQs
As a limited company has its own legal identity, the court cannot make orders directly against it. By way of example, if a limited company owns a house, the court could not order the company to transfer that house to the husband, even if the wife is the sole shareholder or wholly in control of the company. It is the company which owns the house, not the shareholder.
However this does not mean that a limited company is completely disregarded. If a party in a divorce is a shareholder of a limited company, it is likely the court will want to know how much the shares are worth which inevitably requires an assessment of the value of the company and its underlying assets and interests. The court could order that those shares are sold to realise their value. A court could order that there is a transfer of shares from one spouse to another, which frequently happens if both spouses are joint shareholders. Alternatively, the court may offset the value of a shareholding against other assets so the shareholder keeps the shares in full but their spouse keeps more of a different asset.
A company may also be seen as a source of liquidity if it holds excess cash. Whilst a court cannot order a company to pay a lump sum to somebody, it could make an order against a shareholder requiring them to make a cash payment to their spouse knowing full well that the only way to satisfy the payment is to extract cash from the company such as through declaring a dividend or taking a loan from the company.
If a dispute goes to court then the losing party will have to pay both their own and the winning parties’ legal costs. In other words, if you did not succeed with your claim, you would have to pay the legal costs incurred by the beneficiaries of the estate. However, if your claim succeeds, the beneficiaries of the estate are likely to have to pay your legal costs, as well as any financial provision which is ordered by the court to come from the estate.
Ward Hadaway can offer a number of options to help to minimise your financial outlay, including acting on a fixed fee basis or a no win no fee arrangement.
We have been offering no win no fee arrangements now for over 20 years. We know that good legal advice is expensive and in most cases, if the case is strong, we can work with you to find a way of bringing the claim. Costs will be discussed with you in detail before you have to pay anything.
Partners Damien Charlton and Jane Garvin look at the provisions of the Bill which impact on a supplier’s rights under a contract when their customer enters an insolvency procedure. They also outline other changes to insolvency procedures that the new law will introduce.
This webinar is part of a series designed for in-house lawyers. If you would like to register to receive invitations to future events for in-house legal counsel, please email damien.charlton@wardhadaway.com.
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England Regulations) 2020 were laid before Parliament and come into force on 1 September 2020. They apply in England only.
The changes include the revocation of the following Use Classes;
- A1 – shops
- A2 – financial and professional services
- A3 – restaurants and cafes
- A4 – drinking establishments
- A5 – hot food takeaways
- B1 – business. Also revoked are the sub parts of B1;
- B1(a) – offices
- B1(b) – research and development of products and processes
- B1(c ) – industrial process
- D1 – non residential institutions
- D2 – assembly and leisure
The changes include the amendment of the following Use Class;
- B2 (industry)
The changes include the introduction of the following Use Classes;
- E – commercial, business and service
- F.1 – learning and non-residential institutions
- F.2 – Local community
There are no changes to the following Use Classes;
- C1 – hotels, boarding and guest houses
- C2 – residential institutions
- C3 – dwellinghouses
- C4 – small HMO
From 1 September 2020;
- Small retail shops (not more than 280 sq metres net sales area) selling essential goods including food and at least 1 kilometre from another shop will cease being an A1 use and will become a F.2 (local community) use;
- Other A1 shops will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- A2 uses will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- A3 uses will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- A4 uses will not be in a Use Class, they will be sui generis, ie not in any use class;
- A5 uses will not be in a Use Class, they will be sui generis, ie not in any use class;
- B1 uses (included B1(a), B1 (b) and B1 (c) will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- B2 uses will either be B2 uses or will be Class E uses.
- Clinics, health centres, creches, day nurseries and day centres (previously D1 uses) will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- Schools, non residential education and training centres, museums, public libraries, public halls, exhibition halls, places of worship, law courts (previously D1 uses) will become an F.1 ( learning and non-residential institutions) use;
- Cinemas, concert halls, live music performance venues, bingo halls and dance halls (previously D2 uses) and will be sui generis, ie not in any use class;
- Gyms, indoor sport, recreation or fitness not involving motorised vehicles or firearms principally to visiting members of the public (previously D2 uses) will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- Hall or meeting place for the principal use of the local community (previously D2 uses) will become an F.2 (local community) use;
- Indoor or outdoor swimming baths, skating rinks, outdoor sports or recreation grounds (not involving motorised vehicles or firearms) (previously D2 uses) will become an F.2 (local community) use.
Changes of use within a Use Class do not constitute development. That being the case, provided the Order is applicable, its operation not having been restricted by planning condition, Agreement or Article 4 (1) Direction for example, planning permission would not be required, development as defined not happening. If legally binding confirmation is required that planning permission is not required this can only be obtained by way of a successful application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. In the absence of such, there is some risk.
It remains the case that planning permission may be required for operational works to buildings. It also remains the case that other consents and permissions may be necessary for example licenses. Furthermore amendments to leases may be required if the property is rented.
The Regulations additionally include transitional arrangements because of permitted development rights for changes of use in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order amongst others. To respond to this Regulations introduce a ‘material period’ which is defined as meaning the period beginning 1 September 2020 and ending 31 July 2021. It is expected during the material period the Orders giving permitted development rights for changes for use which do constitute development will be amended / updated to reflect the new use classes.
Click here to view the Regulations.
The above is based on our understanding of the new Regulations at the time of issue and in advance of planning practice guidance being issued.
No. The Home Office has confirmed that sponsors do not need to report sponsored workers as working from home, where this is directly related to the coronavirus outbreak.
However any UK employers who sponsor overseas workers, should also ensure that they remain compliant with their other sponsor licence duties, which includes reporting any change to an employee’s salary and duties.