Spring
2012
Private Client UPDATE
Till turning 60 do us part – facing divorce in later life
Divorce among the over-60s is at records levels. The latest
figures show that the overall divorce rate across all age groups
fell by 11% between 2007 and 2009.
However, the figure for the over-60s rose by 4.2% to 11,507
over the same period. There are probably several reasons for
this.
People are living longer, more active lives. Many couples find
they have grown apart by the time they get to their sixties. Once
their children have left home, they find there is little left to bind
them together and they decide to separate while they still have
time to start again and seek new experiences.
Older people face the same general issues that confront all
couples involved in a divorce, although some problems will be
more relevant than others.
Their children have probably grown up and flown the nest so
there should be no concerns about contact arrangements etc.
On the other hand, they may have to pay extra attention to
issues such as inheritance and tax planning. It’s likely that
before the divorce, the couple’s wealth, including the house,
was owned jointly by both partners. When one died, the estate
would pass to the other without any inheritance tax issues.
Once they divorce, however, that automatic exemption
no longer applies and so they may have to look closely at
arrangements to protect their estate as much as possible. Wills
are an important issue for all divorcing couples but especially
so for the elderly.
If they already have a will in place, it’s likely that they will have
left all or most of their estate to their partner. Do they still want
that to happen once they divorce? Who do they want to benefit
if not their former spouse?
They will need to draw up a new will to reflect their changing
circumstances. The couple will also have to reach a financial
settlement. Generally speaking, assets will have to be divided
equally. All the couple’s assets, including pensions, are taken
into account when assessing the matrimonial pot.
This can sometimes be complicated, especially when it involves
pensions that may not become active until a few years down
the line. Nevertheless, everything has to be calculated and
taken into consideration before arriving at a final settlement.
Looking to the future, many couples may intend to marry again.
If so, they are increasingly likely to consider drawing up prenuptial agreements with their new spouse. Pre-nups used to
be considered unreliable but they have gained in popularity
following recent high profile cases in which the courts ruled
that they should be enforced unless they were clearly unfair.
As more of the baby boomer generation enter their 60s, it’s
likely that the divorce rate for this age group will continue to
rise, especially as the social stigma of separation is diminishing
rapidly.
For more information contact
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
Golfer receives nearly £400,000 after being hit by a ball
A novice golfer has been awarded nearly
£400,000 compensation after losing an
eye when he was hit by a golf ball.
The accident happened when the novice
visited a golf club in 2007. He and his
companions were approaching the 7th
tee when they heard a warning cry of
“fore”. The novice golfer ducked his head
and raised his hand to protect himself
but was still struck by the ball.
His injury was so bad that his eye could
not be saved. He sued both the golf club
and the player who struck the ball. They
claimed that the novice had contributed
to his own injury by not reacting to the
cry of fore and by not protecting his face.
The judge rejected this argument and
said that “reactions can vary” in the
event of an emergency. He held that
both the club and the player who hit the
shot owed a duty of care to other people
on the course.
The player had been at fault for
overestimating the likelihood of his shot
going in the right direction instead of
veering sharply to the side as it had. The
onus was on him to make sure that those
around him would not be put at risk.
www.s m i t h l l e w e l y n . c o m
The club was also at fault for failing to
put up signs warning of wayward shots
on that part of the course.
The judge held that the player who
struck the ball was 70% responsible for
the injury and that the club was 30%
responsible. The novice was awarded
nearly £400,000 to compensate for his
injury.
For more information contact
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
Death bed will upheld despite challenge by family
The High Court has upheld a man’s will
following a challenge by his children who
claimed he had been subjected to undue
pressure by his partner.
the death bed will in favour of the partner
could not be explained as the result of
coercive pressure which deprived him of
free choice.
The man had lived with his partner for
32 years. He had children from an earlier
marriage and also from an extra-marital
affair. He fell terminally ill and so shortly
before he died, he made a will leaving all
his substantial estate to his partner.
The man had understood that by giving
all to his partner, he was not giving
anything to anybody else.
The will was prepared by his solicitor
and read to him. The partner was not
present when the man gave instructions
about what should happen to his estate.
Immediately after making the will, he
married his partner.
He died a few days later. The children
then challenged the will saying the
partner had exerted undue influence
which made their father act in a way that
was contrary to his wishes.
However, the court dismissed the
challenge and upheld the will. It ruled that
The will making process had resulted
in a document containing the last true
wishes of a man who was competent to
make such important decisions. The will
was therefore valid.
For more information contact
E: [email protected]
Husband must pay more after failing to disclose assets
A husband who tried to hide some of his
assets during divorce proceedings has
ended up paying far more than he would
if he had been honest from the outset.
The case involved a mature couple
who separated after several years of
marriage.
They agreed a clean break settlement in
which the wife received a lump sum of
£176,000. However, the wife suspected
that the husband had not revealed all
his assets and applied to have the case
re-opened. The judge identified that a
property which had been purchased in
the name of one of the couple’s adult
children, was in reality owned by the
husband.
Following a detailed evaluation at which
both parties were represented, the judge
awarded the wife a further £384,000.
The husband appealed saying the figure
should be reduced because it failed to
take into account interest he had paid
on loans relating to the property together
with other expenses.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled
against him. It held that the difficulties
faced by the judge in assessing the
case had arisen from the husband’s own
conduct.
For more information contact
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
Teacher receives compensation after attack by pupil
A woman teacher who had
to give up her job after being
attacked by a pupil has been
awarded £35,634 compensation.
The teacher was 49 years old
when she was attacked at the
school where she worked. She
was pushed against a wall
and the pupil then struck her
on the shoulder with a school
bag. She sustained injuries to her neck
and shoulder, and suffered from post
traumatic stress disorder for two years
after the attack. She was unable to work
for 20 weeks and then returned to the
school on a phased basis.
unable to continue as a teacher and
so she resigned. The Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority awarded her
damages of £35,634 to compensate for
her injuries, suffering, loss of earnings
and loss of future opportunity.
However, she kept reliving the assault
and felt unable to cope. She continued
to experience nightmares and general
anxiety. Her condition meant she felt
For more information contact
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
For more information about our services, please visit: www.smithllewelyn.com
Smith Llewelyn Partnership
18 Princess Way
Swansea SA1 3LW
Partners
Peter Smith
Susan Bennett
Graham Jones
Amanda Davies
Tel: 01792 464444
Fax: 01792 464726
Email: [email protected]
This newsletter is intended merely to alert readers to legal developments as they arise. The articles are not intended to be a
definitive analysis of current law and professional legal advice should always be taken before pursuing any course of action.