What if there is no Will? Can I challenge what I would receive ?

In appropriate cases, disciplinary action and then dismissal may be fair if an employee refuses to wear a face covering in the workplace. For example, if this is in breach of the government guidance or if  employer has issued a reasonable management instruction to this effect due to an identified health and safety risk.

It is important that employers use a fair and reasonable procedure when deciding whether to discipline and/or dismiss an employee and that its actions does not unlawfully discriminate against employees who have legitimate reasons for not wearing masks, such as those individuals who have health conditions like asthma.

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.

Within divorce proceedings, the court can order that a property is sold and that the mortgage is discharged from the proceeds of sale before the remaining balance is distributed to the parties, thus bringing the mortgage to an end.

The court also has the power to order that a property owned in joint names is transferred into one of the spouse’s sole name. However the court cannot order the mortgage provider to transfer the mortgage into one of the parties’ names. A number of options are available to resolve this. Depending on the financial circumstances, the spouse receiving the property may be able to re-mortgage the property into their sole name. If that is not possible and the mortgage has to remain in joint names, the court may require the spouse retaining the property to be responsible for the mortgage and provide an indemnity to the other party so that if they stop paying the mortgage, the other spouse can take action against them. Alternatively, in certain cases, a court may transfer the property into one spouse’s name but order that the other spouse continues to pay the mortgage, perhaps for a period of time such as until children reach a particular age.

Maintenance Orders are capable of variation so if your income has reduced as a result of the pandemic, you may be entitled to reduce your payments. You should ensure that any reduction is reflected in a Court Order to ensure your ex-spouse cannot claim arrears from you.

It is not generally possible to vary capital and pension settlements included in Court Orders unless there has been a significant event, sometimes known as a “barder event”. The following four conditions must be satisfied:

1. New events have occurred since the Order which invalidate the basis or fundamental assumption on which the Court Order was made and which were unforeseen and unforeseeable. This can include a change in the value of assets, employment status, inheritance and death.
2. The new events occurred within a relatively short time of the Order being made.
3. The Application to change the Order is made reasonably promptly.
4. If the Application succeeded, this would not prejudice any third parties who have acquired assets in good faith e.g. if the family home has already been sold to a third party.

The applications relying on Covid as a significant event have had limited success. The circumstances in which the Barder principle may apply are few and far between. It is of note that the global financial crisis of 2007/2008 was not considered to be a Barder event.

Care should, therefore, be taken when deciding whether to pursue a change to the Divorce settlement and it is recommended that you speak to a specialist Family Law team like ours.

Yes, but the Courts have been temporarily restructured into three categories:

1. Open courts (open for business including vital in person hearings)
2. Staffed courts (for video and telephone hearings)
3. Suspended courts (no hearings of any kind)

These changes have been effective from Monday 30 March 2020.