What is the divorce process?
From 6 April 2022, the process will change. The first stage in the divorce process is to issue a divorce application with the court. This is the document which outlines that your marriage has broken down irretrievably. If you are a sole applicant, the divorce application will be sent to your husband/wife, and they will have to acknowledge receipt of the application in order for the divorce to proceed. Alternatively, you and your husband/wife can make a joint application together, and the divorce application will be sent to both of you for acknowledgment.
The law lays down a minimum allowable period of 20 weeks between the application and the conditional order. After 20 weeks you can apply to the court for a conditional order. This is the stage when the court satisfies themselves that you are entitled to a divorce. Once you receive your conditional order, you can apply for your final order after 6 weeks and one day. The Final Order formally ends your marriage.
There can be complications to the divorce process if, for example, your husband/wife refuses to acknowledge the divorce application. At these times it is in your best interests to obtain legal advice as to the best way to proceed.
Our experienced divorce lawyers understand the stress of facing a divorce and can make the process simple, hassle free and affordable. They have also prepared this article which provides further detail on the divorce process.
Related FAQs
An employer has a duty of care to its workforce and must take reasonable precautions to protect the health and safety of employees. Employers also have a duty of care towards anyone entering or using their place of business, such as visiting clients or customers.
This means that if an employer reasonably believes that wearing face masks at work is appropriate and necessary, it can issue an instruction to employees to this effect and employees should abide by this as far as possible.
However employers should be cautious about introducing and enforcing a policy across its business which requires its staff to wear face masks as there is the risk of unlawfully discriminating against people who are exempt from wearing face coverings or have legitimate reasons for not doing so. An employer should also consider the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and discuss any concerns raised by employees who do not want to or feel unable to wear a mask.
Yes. The Government has confirmed that those on furlough will also be permitted to volunteer to help the NHS during the coronavirus outbreak without risking their pay.
As an occupier of premises, you owe a duty of care to your visitors to take reasonable care to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using your premises.
It is therefore essential that you are taking reasonable steps and strictly adhering to up-to-date Government advice in all aspects of your business to avoid any potential liability.
Failure to follow Government advice could leave you vulnerable to claims for compensation for pain and suffering should a visitor on your premises contract Covid-19.
However, each case will be fact-specific and it would be very difficult for a visitor to establish that they contracted Covid-19 specifically from those premises (as opposed to being exposed to the virus anywhere else).
If someone suggests that they are going to make a claim make sure that you report matters to your insurer or insurance broker immediately.
The basics of health and safety law requires that employers take “all reasonably practicable steps” to ensure workers’ safety and that a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk is undertaken. It is the individual assessment of Covid-19 risk in each workplace that will be central. Employers will be required to conduct a robust risk assessment and then, following the hierarchy of controls, put robust processes and safeguards in place to address those risks.
UK government guidance and HSE advice is continually evolving, which in practice means that any risk assessment will need to be reviewed very regularly as that guidance develops. There is flexibility for individual businesses within the overall government framework and there will need to be a process of evaluation to ensure that the measures in place continue to meet the requirements.
The starting point of avoid, eliminate and control means looking at individuals continuing to work from home where possible (the fewer the number of people back in the workplace the lower the risk), and if not look at risk management, which leads to administrative controls – i.e. changing work practices before ending up at PPE. PPE is generally seen as control of last resort but in practice – facemasks, disposable gloves and constant prompts to wash hands for example.
In terms of changing working practices, employers should be thinking about:
- the workspace and how this is laid layout
- how do we make sure it is kept clean and hygienic
- how do we keep people apart
- how can we use toilets, canteens or other shared spaces/facilities safely
- how do we promote and enable higher levels of workplace hygiene
- if we are going to rely on PPE – can we get it, and is it suitable
- what about limiting customer interactions
- will there be enough first aiders on site
- can we manage fire safety, deliveries etc
- what about higher risk workers
- should work tools and equipment be allocated on an individual basis to employees.
These decisions need to be recorded and clearly communicated to staff members.
This is unlikely. Frustration is a doctrine rarely used as a way of getting out of leases. It operates to bring a lease to an early end because of the effect of a supervening event. It is then not a concept readily applicable to a situation where one party is looking to get out of a lease. To be able to argue the doctrine of frustration, you must be able to demonstrate that something unforeseeable has happened that makes it impossible to fulfil the lease and unjust to hold a party to its obligations.
This is not something that can be demonstrated easily.
There was a case in the High Court last year when the doctrine of frustration was looked at in a case involving the European Medical Agency.
The court found that Brexit did not frustrate EMA’s lease. EMA was granted leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, but unfortunately, the parties settled out of court so the arguments were not tested in the higher court.
Another reason why frustration is likely to fail is an argument that, whilst the current lockdown may force closures to businesses and whilst such closures maybe for a lengthy period, such closures will only be temporary.