header-logo header-logo

27 April 2007
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

I spy with my private eye

Extramarital affairs are up, prompting a huge rise in the use of private investigators by divorcing couples to confirm fears that their other half was cheating on them, family lawyers report.

The numbers using snoops to catch out their unfaithful spouses shot up to 49% of all divorcing couples in 2006, compared to just 18% in 2005, according to Grant Thornton Forensic and Investigation Services practice’s fourth annual survey of 100 of the UK’s leading family lawyers.

The survey showed that women were nearly twice as likely to use such a service to check up on their spouse than men—unsurprisingly, perhaps, given that in two thirds (69%) of cases it was men who played away.

According to the lawyers surveyed, the stated reason for marital breakdowns in the UK in 32% of cases was due to one partner having an affair during 2006, up from 29% in 2005 and 27% in 2004.

Behaviour was blamed for marriage breakdown in 17% of cases, followed by family strains in 8% of cases and decisions of a personal nature in 4% of instances.

Only 4% cited emotional and physical abuse as the reason for their divorce, down from 12% in 2005.
Andrea McLaren, head of Grant Thornton’s London matrimonial practice says one of the survey’s most surprising results was the fall in the number of couples who tried to hide assets from their estranged spouse. In 2006, only 10% of couples did so, down from 16% in 2005.

She says that given the House of Lords’ judgment in the Miller and McFarlane cases, this figure was expected to increase as spouses tried to keep assets out of the pot of wealth which the courts can carve up.
McLaren says that possible reasons for the decline could include the sophisticated forensic techniques now available to search for such “hidden” assets.

However, she adds that it could simply be due to the fact that women today have a stronger awareness of and involvement in their financial affairs than in the past.

Issue: 7270 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll