News and articles
Victory for Pub Licensee in Noise Case
Monday, June 30th, 2008
Thwaites, the Blackburn-based brewery which owns 400 pubs, has won a victory which will bring cheer to licensees, but may cause consternation for those who live near busy pubs that open well into the night. It illustrates that objections to extended licensing hours based on the nuisance caused must be accompanied by evidence that this is in fact the case. In the decision in point, the High Court ruled that a decision by magistrates to cut the opening hours of Thwaites’ Saughall Hotel in Saughall Massie on Merseyside was not based on evidence.
The pub had initially been granted a licence by Wirral Council to open until 1 am on Friday and Saturday and until midnight during the rest of the week. The Saughall Massie Village Conservation Society appealed to the local Magistrates’ Court against the decision on the ground that the extended hours would lead to excessive noise and disorder. The magistrates agreed and reduced the hours. Thwaites appealed to the High Court, arguing that the objection was based on speculation rather than evidence, as there had not been any complaints of noise nuisance, and also that the decision of the magistrates was contrary to the philosophy of the Licensing Act and the restrictions placed on Thwaites were unnecessary to promote the licensing objectives. The judge agreed, reinstating the original decision of the Council.
The effect of the decision will be to make it easier for licensees to defeat objections to extensions where these are based on speculation rather than evidence.
To book your free audit or for guidance and advice on all licensing matters contact our licensing expert Paul Slot now.
Cancer Research Race for Life 2008
Thursday, June 26th, 2008
15 members of the firm took part in the Race for Life 2008 in Stanmer Park Brighton raising money for Cancer Research on Sunday, 22 June. The team joined thousands of other runners in Stanmer Park for the 5K run helping to raise over £250,000.
Some of the members of the Burt Brill & Cardens team
Selling your property at Auction
Thursday, June 26th, 2008
In recent years, increased mobility and growing rates of home ownership have meant that ever-larger numbers of people nowadays inherit properties from relatives who lived many miles away. Similarly, many buy-to-let properties have been purchased in areas with a large student population, miles away from where their owners live. In such cases, when the time comes to sell the property, it is often difficult for the usual process of showing it to prospective purchasers to be carried out by the owner.
In such circumstances, it is quite common for a property to be sold at auction. If you are considering elling a property by this method, here are some steps you can take to help make sure your sale goes as smoothly as possible.
Well before the auction is planned, make sure you put together the necessary documentation, such as the Home Information Pack.
Make a list of the information a prospective buyer will find useful, such as the age of the central heating system, wiring etc. and include any guarantees. Set your reserve price, which is the lowest price you will accept for the property. If the reserve is not met at auction, the property will not be sold. The reserve price should therefore be reasonable as if the property does not sell, there will still be costs to meet for the marketing of the property and the related legal work.
You should also decide when you want the completion date to be. The contract to buy and sell is created when the auctioneer’s hammer falls and the deposit is payable immediately, with the completion normally a few weeks later.
Work out your plan B. In the present market, property is becoming more difficult to sell, so do not assume that the property will inevitably sell at auction. It may not. Make sure, therefore, that you are prepared for the possibility that after the auction, the property will still be yours. Vacant properties do qualify for rate relief, but other costs (such as insurance) may rise.
Contact Sophie Warren now for advice on all legal matters relating to buying and selling property.
Living happily ever after?
Thursday, June 26th, 2008
If you have family wealth that you wish to protect, the joy at the prospect of you or one of your children getting married may be tempered somewhat by a touch of trepidation in case the marriage doesn’t last.
In such circumstances, the use of a pre-nuptial agreement (‘pre-nup’) is likely to make a great deal of sense. Legally speaking, such agreements are still rather a grey area. However, the judge in a leading case on the subject has helpfully suggested a number of criteria which will help the courts in deciding whether or not a pre-nup will be enforceable.
The most important of these from the perspective of the parties to a pre-nup are:
- does the spouse being asked to sign the pre-nup understand it?
- has he or she been properly advised as to its terms?
- was pressure exerted by one spouse to make the other sign?
- was there full disclosure of the relevant assets?
- was pressure exerted by anyone else to make them sign?
- was the agreement signed willingly?
- did one spouse exploit a dominant position?
- was the agreement entered into in the knowledge that there would be a child?
- has any unforeseen circumstance arisen which would make enforcing the pre-nup unjust?
- does the order preclude the payment of any periodical payment for maintenance of a spouse?
- are there grounds for believing that upholding the agreement would be unjust?
For a pre-nup to achieve the desired object, it must be properly drafted and put into place in the correct circumstances. In particular, both parties to it should have the benefit of independent legal advice.
If you are concerned that a relationship might not have a happy ending, we can assist you to help protect your family’s assets from the claims of an ex-spouse. Contact Marie Stock for more advice and details of our special fixed fee pre-nups.
Ex-wife now has to fight off former husband’s Trustees in Bankruptcy
Friday, June 20th, 2008
You might have thought it was all over - but your divorce settlement may not be as final as you hoped.
A recent High Court ruling has closed a loophole giving individuals protection over their share of assets ordered on divorce with the effect that divorcees may now have to give up assets in order to meet former spouses’ debts if the ex-spouse goes bankrupt within five years of the divorce being finalised.
Bankruptcy trustees will be able to pursue the solvent ex-spouse for up to five years and this ruling is also retrospective, applying to divorce orders made within the past five years.
Judge Pelling, QC, sitting as a High Court judge, made the ruling on 9 May in a case involving Mr & Mrs H, who jointly owned a property in Worcestershire.
Mrs H petitioned for divorce in 2003 and her husband was ordered to transfer the house to her in a court settlement. She was not granted any lump sum because of the risk, in the presiding judge’s view, that her husband might become bankrupt in the near future.
When, in March 2005, Mr H petitioned to be declared bankrupt, with total liabilities estimated at £132,000, the bankruptcy trustees sought, but failed, to set aside the divorce settlement at the County Court. The High Court decision was the result of their appeal against that ruling and for Mrs H, it means she could be forced to give back her ex-husband’s share of the house.
Hitherto, bankruptcy trustees were not able to overturn settlements decided in a fully contested hearing. However, the law permits them to reclaim any property given away or transferred at less then its full value in the five years before bankruptcy. In Court, the trustees successfully claimed that this covered the property Mr H had made over to his wife.
Mrs H has indicated that she will appeal this decision. However, this could take some time, during which the trustees could start legal action based on the current ruling.
However, the message is don’t panic. This case had some unusual elements. Because of the prediction of his bankruptcy, Mr H was not allotted a full share of the assets. Even so, it is predicted that this decision will affect at least 20 per cent of the 120,000 people expected to file for bankruptcy this year and will change the face of divorce settlements where the prospect of bankruptcy is a real likelihood.
For individual information on how this ruling might affect you, contact Kevin on 01342 306288 .
© Copyright 2008 Burt Brill and Cardens Solicitors