News

Cohabitation law reform put on hold

Plans to give couples who live together more rights have been shelved by the government meaning further injustice for cohabiting couples, say family lawyers. A Law Commission paper— The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown—recommended that unmarried cohabitants who split up should be able to make claims against one another if one has gained or lost out financially as a result of the relationship.

But announcing the government’s response to the commission’s paper in a ministerial statement, justice minister Bridget Prentice said the government wants to wait for research findings on the Family Law () Act 2006 before making any changes in and .

The delay comes despite findings from the British Social Attitudes Survey in January 2008 which showed that nine out of 10 people think a cohabiting partner should have a right to financial provision if their relationship is a long-term one, includes children, and has involved prioritising one partner’s career over the other’s.

Jane Craig, a member of Resolution’s cohabitation committee, says: “Our members frequently see people who face financial hardship and even homelessness as a result of the current law. Any further delay inevitably means further injustice.” She says a government - funded awareness campaign in 2004 clearly failed to get the message across sufficiently that living together does not provide cohabiting couples with financial rights if their relationship ends.

Offshore workers win right to paid leave

All offshore workers are entitled to paid holidays under the Working Time Regulations, an employment tribunal has ruled, in what is being hailed as a victory for 25,000 workers. Several hundred applications had been submitted for review, but only seven “sample” cases proceeded to a hearing to make it a more manageable process. The implications of the judgment, however, affect all employers with staff working in the UK Continental Shelf. Amicus, a predecessor union of Unite, brought the case against offshore employers through its solicitors Rowley Ashworth.

The offshore workers claimed employers were failing to properly apply a change in the law covering holiday pay for offshore workers. Rowley Ashworth solicitor, Lynda Norbury says: “This judgment marks a significant development in the application of the Working Time Regulations to workers with unusual working patterns. It confirms that employees must be allowed to take holiday at a time when they would have been at work.” Unite regional officer, Graham Tran urged all companies operating offshore to meet with the recognised unions to discuss how best to implement it.

Lawyers find satisfaction at work

Law firms performed well in this year’s Sunday Times Top 100 Best Companies To Work For list, with Pannone in the top 10 for the second year running.

The Manches ter law firm is ranked fifth in the prestigious line-up of companies, which are graded on staff satisfaction in eight areas, including personal growth and leadership. More than 650 companies and organisations took part in this year’s survey.

Pannone, which was third last year, received the highest score (85%) in the survey for staff awareness of who does what in the organisation, and the second highest score (84%) for employees who were not bored by their work. Managing Partner Steven Grant says: “Despite the fact we now employ over 700 staff as opposed to just 500 only three years ago, we still maintain a genuine ‘family’ atmosphere.”

The 12 law firms listed include

Legal aid debts may not be paid

Large amounts of legal aid money that could have been reclaimed by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) may be lost because of missed recovery deadlines. Last week, the appeal court ruled the LSC was time-barred from recovering money owed it by an individual whose grant of legal aid was revoked by the Legal Aid Board in 1999 for failure to provide requisite documents. The case, LSC v Rasool concerned whether the LSC’s claim, made in 2006 for more than £17,000, was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The court held that it was. In his judgment, Lord Justice Ward expressed concern that other claims for recovery may be time-barred.

Referring to the county court’s ruling in the case, he states: “[The judge] dismissed the claim but gave leave to appeal because the issue could be a matter of significance to more than the present parties—indeed we were told, I confess to my surprise, that large amounts of money have not been collected in many cases where certificates have been revoked.” Simon Pottinger, of JRS Consultants, says: “The client at the centre of this case had his legal aid certificate revoked, which is not a common occurrence. However, my reading of the judgment is that the statutory limit applies to all monies over six years old and not resolved, in which case potentially significant sums of money—millions of pounds—is involved. It’s a Pandora’s box.”

An LSC spokesman says:

“The court’s judgment in this case provides clarity on the issue involved. We are currently obtaining leading counsel’s opinion on the implication of the judgment. “However, it appears that only a small number of cases, of negligible value, will be affected by the judgment.”

Hunt refuses to delay legal aid helpline for suspects

The government is sticking to its timetable for a free national telephone advice line for suspects at police stations despite a leading QC’s plea for more time. CDS Direct, a telephone helpline which provides non-means tested legal advice to suspects of minor, non-indictable offences at police stations, has been in use nationally since October 2005. In January, the scheme was extended to include “own client” work, so that any client who requests a specific solicitor but doesn’t want to pay will instead be referred to the helpline. This extended scheme is currently running in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and t h e , and is due to be implemented nationally on 21 April. However, Professor Michael Zander QC, a member of the Home Office’s PACE Review Board, has called on Lord Hunt, the minister in charge of legal aid, to delay the scheme until research into suspects’ own experiences of it is completed. (See “A bit more time please’, NLJ, 7 March 2008, p 349.) The research, by the Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC), will show the suspect’s point of view which, Zander says, is ignored by the LSC’s own evaluation of the pilot.

He identifies other concerns, including questioning whether the predicted savings in costs will materialise and whether the advisers manning the helpline will be able to get through to the police station to speak to the suspect. In a letter to Zander last week, however, Lord Hunt states: “Subject to the final outcome of the operational review...I do not believe that there is a need to delay national roll-out.”

He continues: “I believe that to delay the expansion of CDS Direct would only cause confusion and undermine the joint working [between professional bodies] that has taken place to agree on a form of words that is acceptable to all parties. Similarly, there is no need to delay national implementation to take account of the LSRC research around own client work that is currently ongoing and is independent of CDS Direct.” He agrees with Zander’s suggestion that “desirable changes” could be made to the drafting of the amendments to the PACE codes. Zander says: “The CDS Direct evaluation does not include interviews with suspects. Research on access to solicitors in police stations currently being conducted by the LSRC would fill that gap. The database will be available for analysis by the end of April. National roll-out of the new system should be delayed to allow for the results of that research to be assessed.”

About 750,000 people opt for free legal advice at police stations each year—about half of those arrested.