Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
NHS worker Jakki Smith has won a legal battle against the government to win better rights for unmarried people who lost their long-term partners.
According to the BBC, Jakki Smith, from Chorley, UK, sued the government for denying her bereavement compensation after her partner of 16 years, John Bulloch, died from an infection that medics had missed. According to Jakki, the government had violated her human rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to be awarded bereavement damages.
Any married individual or civil partner is entitled to this when medical negligence takes place, at a fixed sum of £12,980. Jakki Smith and John Bulloch were together for 16 years, yet unmarried.
A court of appeal allowed her to challenge the High Court Ruling against her claim. Although Jakki will not get the sum in retrospect, this victory is important for unmarried and committed couples.
Sue Bowler, Partner and Head of services for vulnerable and disabled people at law firm Coffin Mew, comments: “Until the landmark court decision in Jakki Smith’s case, the law discriminated against unmarried couples when one of them died because of someone else’s negligence. The sum of £12,980 is paid out to spouses or civil partners for the death of a partner, but this did not apply to unmarried partners who received nothing for a negligent death. The Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which contains the relevant provisions, has now been declared in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Court.
“Finally, the balance has been redressed so that unmarried partners can be compensated for the death of a partner as a result of road traffic accidents, accidents at work or medical negligence. It has taken this long because this is the first case to be taken to the Court of Appeal since the European Convention on Human Rights became law in the UK.
“The sum of £12,890 goes nowhere near providing full compensation for the loss of a partner, but at least unmarried partners will now be treated the same by the law for this purpose as those who are married or in a civil partnership. Unfortunately, previously concluded claims cannot be reopened but, in all other cases, proceedings must normally be commenced within three years of the date of death.”
Do you think this law should still apply only to married couples or civil partners, or should extend to committed long-term couples too? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
Judges have joined barristers, solicitors and a range of specialists in airing a catalogue of concerns over the Government’s treatment of immigration detainees in a report published this week that condemns inflexible Home Office rules and target-obsessed officials.[i]
Speaking under the condition of strict anonymity for an independent study commissioned by the Bar Council, one judge claimed simply that ‘too many people are being banged up’.[ii]
The quality of Home Office bail summaries were universally lambasted by research participants and judges berated Home Office officials for giving misleading information to tribunals and for presenting them with ‘elliptical nonsense’ when challenging bail applications.[iii]
One barrister echoed the perspective of many research participants, saying of Home Office Presenting Officers: ‘Some are quite good, professional… others are incompetent, and some seem to be on some sort of mission to imprison people…’ The Officers were additionally criticised for adhering rigidly to ‘stupid’ codes, overlooking key details[iv], and for being reluctant to disclose important information[v] at tribunal hearings. Insufficient training[vi] and supervision were also blamed for wasting time and tax payers’ money.[vii]
Reflecting widespread concerns over detainees’ access to legal help, one judge spoke of the ‘shocking’ rise in unrepresented litigants in person.[viii]
Responding to ‘Injustices in Immigration Detention’ written by Dr Anna Lindley of SOAS, the Chair of the Bar Andrew Langdon QC said:
“This is a very detailed and well-researched report drawing on interviews with judges, barristers, solicitors and a range of specialists.
“It shows that there is a growing sense of frustration with how the Home Office manages immigration detention. The Home Office is one of the great offices of state, but the quality of its decision-making is unacceptably poor. Dr Lindley’s research paints a picture of officials acting with little accountability, unable or unwilling to pursue obvious and viable alternatives to detention.
“It is right that Government should set immigration and removal targets according to the mandate for which it was elected, but given that the liberty of the individual is at stake, proper scrutiny is essential.
“If we cannot remove or detain people fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, we fail to live up to the standards we expect of others.
“The quality of decision-making by immigration officers is exacerbated by the difficulties faced by detainees in obtaining legal advice and representation. Dr Lindley found that in some areas, over 30% of detainees making a bail application before a tribunal judge do so without a lawyer to represent them.
“The complexity of immigration law is also at fault. It is a constantly shifting and highly politicised area of law, such that there is a dearth of settled case law to guide the judges. The law allows a wide degree of discretion, resulting inevitably in considerable inconsistency.
“Almost every informed commentator accepts that fundamental to the reforms required is the introduction of a statutory 28-day time-limit on detention. The UK is the only European country not to have a time limit.
“The UK has an otherwise well-deserved international reputation for upholding the rule of law. By not addressing problems with immigration detention, we put that reputation at risk. We expect other countries to follow the rule of law and so we must practice what we preach.”
Commenting on immigration detention, Chair of the Bar Andrew Langdon QC said: “Many people are surprised to learn that individuals can be locked up indefinitely in prison conditions, not for committing a criminal offence but for administrative convenience whilst their immigration status is decided or arrangements are made for their removal.
“Presently, a decision to detain an immigrant can result in their detention for sixth months, a year, or even longer. Because these decisions are ‘administrative’ decisions delegated by the Home Office they do not require judicial oversight. Detainees have no opportunity to challenge the initial decision to detain them. Many of the decisions to detain, or to continue to detain are highly questionable. In fact, only half of those held in detention are actually returned to their country of origin and pilot studies show that 90-95% who are released pending a decision on their removal do not abscond.
“Apart from the human cost, the figures referenced by Dr Lindley suggest that this system of immigration detention is a questionable use of scarce public money.
“Around 30,000 migrants are held for some time each year at a cost of £125 million. That is £34,000 per detainee per year. That is on top of an average of over £4 million a year in the last three years that the Home Office has had to pay out in compensation for unlawful detention.
“Meanwhile, legal aid cuts have left many vulnerable people, including those detained in immigration detention, without access to the help they need.”
Indefinite detention in numbers
Recommendations
In light of the independently produced report, the Bar Council is making the following recommendations to Government:
Further information on ‘Injustices in Immigration Detention’ by Dr Anna Lindley
‘Injustices in Immigration Detention’ is an independent report commissioned by the Bar Council, written by Dr Anna Lindley of SOAS.
The report uses the concepts of the rule of law and access to justice to investigate the situation of people in immigration detention. It examines:
The research, carried out over three months, draws on a review of official documents, research and statistical data, as well as 21 interviews with barristers, solicitors, immigration judges and other specialists.
(Source: The Bar Council)
Autumn Budget to hit private sector contractors
Comment from Chris Blundell, Employment Tax Partner at MHA MacIntyre Hudson
“The government looks increasingly likely to extend the off-payroll IR35 rules in this week’s Budget to level the field between the public and private sector workers.
“This will lead to a significant increase in labour costs and a major administrative headache for companies which engage contractors working through their own companies (Personal Service Companies), exactly as witnessed in the public sector since April this year.
“The NHS, for example, must now assess whether a locum nurse or doctor providing services via their own Personal Service Company are caught by IR35 and, if they are, deduct tax and national insurance contributions from their earnings under PAYE.
“While the reforms have led to public sector bodies adding about 90,000 people to their payrolls in the three months to 30 June 2017, they have also resulted in labour and skill shortages, as a number of IT contractors, locum doctors and nurses now choose to work less or work only for the private sector.
“The boom in off-payroll work is costing the Exchequer an amount estimated in some quarters to be as high as £4bn a year, and the Government will certainly continue its mission to fight this. Private sector companies who engage contractors should watch out for updates from the Chancellor, and seek information on how to best manage their position.”
When a personal guarantee is given in respect of a loan and the terms of the loan are later changed, this may cause problems for the lender if it seeks to enforce the guarantee. In the article below, Henry Evans, a solicitor at Gordon Dadds, will explore the law on this, as well as a recent High Court case which has provided welcome clarification.
Commercial background
A personal guarantee (often referred to as a ‘PG’) is a promise made by an individual to fulfil the obligations of a third party if the third party fails to fulfil its obligations. Often, directors of a company will personally guarantee monies borrowed by that company from a bank, so that if the borrower does not repay the bank, the bank will be able to claim the monies owed from the directors instead.
Personal guarantees will often contain a cap, so that the person granting the guarantee (known as a ‘guarantor’) will only have to repay up to a certain amount of the total monies owed. From a lender’s perspective, even where the amount borrowed by a company is far more than the directors could possibly repay in reality, it is often considered to be worth getting personal guarantees from the directors on the basis that doing so will help to focus the directors’ minds (since the directors’ own assets will be at risk) and ensure that they take the repayment of the loan seriously.
Legal background
From time to time, it may be necessary or desirable to change the terms of a loan and the relevant documentation. For example, if the borrower suspects that it will be unable to repay the borrowed money on time and the bank is willing to let the borrower have extra time to pay, the facility agreement will need to be amended to push back the repayment date; if the borrower needs to borrow more money than was originally made available, the facility agreement will need to be amended to increase the commitment. It is very common in practice for facility agreements to be amended.
Making changes to a facility agreement without the consent of any guarantors who are guaranteeing the monies lent under the agreement can lead to the guarantees being rendered ineffective. The judgment in the case of Holme v Brunskill [1878] shows that if a guaranteed contract is substantially amended without the consent of the guarantors, the guarantors will be released from their guarantees. Minor amendments, or amendments which do not adversely affect the guarantors, will not discharge the guarantees. It is worth noting that an amendment to increase the loan being made available to the borrower is likely to be found to adversely affect a guarantor even if the guarantor’s liability under the guarantee is capped, as the increased loan sum is likely to mean that the borrower is more likely to be unable to repay the loan, and therefore there is a higher risk that the guarantor will be required to make a payment under the guarantee.
As a result of this, a provision is usually included in guarantee documentation to state that the obligations of the primary debtor may be changed in future without the need for the consent of the guarantor (this is known as an “indulgence clause”). Such provisions can work, but case law, including Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs [2005], shows that an agreement that an indulgence clause will only be found by the courts to cover amendments which fall within the purview of the original guarantee. This means that some variations are so substantial that an indulgence clause will be ineffective. In Dobbs, both the amount of the loan and the scope of the development to be financed by the loan were substantially increased, and this was found to be outside of the purview of the original guarantee and so the guarantee in that case was found to be ineffective.
Recent case - facts
Maxted v Investec Bank Plc [2017] concerned loans made by Investec to three Luxembourg companies under three separate facility agreements, so that the borrowers could purchase real estate in Germany. The two directors (who were also the owners and managers) of the borrower companies gave personal guarantees to the bank, with a cap on the total amount that the directors would have to pay if the guarantees were to be enforced. The guarantees each contained a (standard) indulgence clause stating that the guarantee would not be rendered ineffective by any variation or amendment of any agreement between Investec and the borrowers.
The facility agreements were amended more than once to extend the term of the loans and to roll up the interest. Both directors signed a statement on the last occasion when the facility agreements were amended to confirm that Investec could continue to rely on the personal guarantees and stating that they waived their right to seek independent legal advice in respect of the personal guarantees.
The borrower companies failed to make the payments under the loans, so Investec made demands against the guarantors in respect of the personal guarantees. The guarantors refused to pay, arguing that the personal guarantees had been discharged as a result of substantial amendments to the facility agreements (which the guarantors argued were outside the scope of the indulgence clause in the personal guarantees).
The guarantors claimed that they could not recall being consulted about the amendments to the facility agreements and that they had not received any advice in relation to their role as guarantors (they stated that banking affairs of the borrower companies had been dealt with by a business partner who had since died, though both of the guarantors had executed the banking documents). The guarantors also argued that they had been subject to undue influence when it came to their signing the waiver of their right to seek independent legal advice, on the basis that a relationship of trust and confidence existed between Investec and the guarantors.
Recent case - judgment
The High Court held that, on the facts, the changes to the facility agreements (extending the term of the loan and rolling up the interest) were within the scope of the indulgence clause in the guarantee. With regard to the guarantors’ claim that they had not consented to the amendments and received no advice in their capacity as guarantors, the Court found that it would be “unreal” to divide the guarantors’ knowledge between that which they had gained in their capacity as directors, owners and managers of the borrower companies and that which they had in their capacity as guarantors. The fact that they knew all about the amendments in their capacity as directors meant that they were also held to have had this knowledge in their capacity as guarantors; the judgment states that “in any event, the evidence supports the view that there was consent to the variations”, though this was not decisive in the case since the amendments were within the scope of the indulgence clause.
The Court also found that there was no evidence at all that Investec had influenced the guarantors to execute the personal guarantees and that even had there been such evidence there was no evidence to support the contention that any such influence was undue. The relationship between Investec and the guarantors was held to be commercial and that the guarantors were “men of business” who understood the risks of granting personal guarantees, so undue influence was not relevant.
Comment
This judgment will please lenders since a market standard indulgence clause, on the facts of the case, was found to have given sufficient latitude for the repayment date of a loan to be extended and interest to be rolled up. Both of these amendments are commonly made to facility agreements in practice. This means that the clause operated exactly as it was intended in respect of these amendments. The case is also helpful in confirming that the courts will not necessarily distinguish between information held by individuals in their roles as directors of a borrower and that held in their roles as guarantors of that borrower.
That said, lenders and their advisors should be careful when making amendments to loans, and may wish to think about the following in order to minimise the risk of a court finding that a guarantee has been discharged:
Directors of companies which are borrowing money should always be mindful of the risks of entering into personal guarantees. Anybody entering into a personal guarantee should be aware that they are putting their personal assets (potentially including any houses, saving and investments that they own) at risk and should not enter into such an agreement without considering the potential consequences and seeking appropriate legal advice upon it.
When it comes down to qualifications, besides the addition of some pocket money, what you need to get into law school is pretty straight forward. But becoming a lawyer does require a certain set of skills. Here Emma Jones, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University, delves into the kinds of soft skills inherently required to success as a lawyer.
Soft skills are becoming increasingly vital in today’s quickly evolving legal services market. This article explains some of the key skills you will need to succeed.
What are soft skills?
This term is used to refer to a variety of skills which fall outside the traditional intellectual skills taught on a law degree. For example, dealing with people in a positive and friendly manner, working well as part of a team and demonstrating empathy with others. Many of these skills are encompassed in the phrase “social and emotional intelligence”. In fact, the term “soft skills” is not particularly accurate as it implies these skills are a form of optional extra, whereas in fact they are crucial to life in practice.
Which soft skills do lawyers use?
There are many soft skills which are necessary in order to succeed in practice. Here are a few of them:-
As a lawyer you will be in contact with a wide variety of people, including colleagues, clients and potential future clients! You not only need to convey complex legal ideas clearly and simply, but you also have to be aware of the ways that your body language, dress and demeanour can all influence how people respond to what you are telling them.
In networking situations, being able to establish a rapport and project a positive and friendly persona are key. It isn’t about being “false”, it’s about showing that lawyers have a personality too! In other situations, for example, when dealing with legal professionals acting for other parties, you will need to ensure that you represent your client’s interests as well as possible by demonstrating your professionalism and commitment in every communication.
One way to develop these skills is to watch other, more experienced lawyers (or other professionals) at work. You can learn a lot from seeing how they communicate in different situations. It is important to take advantage of any opportunities to observe such professionals, for example, at Law School, Law Society or Inns of Court events.
When dealing with clients and colleagues, you need to ensure you build constructive and appropriate relationships. With clients, this can include demonstrating empathy for their situation and acknowledging the emotional investment they have in a case. At the same time, it involves setting relevant boundaries so your professional ethics are not compromised. Working with colleagues often demands strong communication skills, and a willingness to negotiate and look at an issue from alternative perspectives.
Look for opportunities to develop your team-working skills by becoming involved on a committee for your university Law Society or another local organisation or charity. Undertaking pro bono activities will also give you the chance to work with clients and others and experience relationship building first hand.
An important part of being a lawyer is taking responsibility for your own behaviour and wellbeing and understanding how you responding to different situations. Getting to know yourself well, developing coping mechanisms for difficult situations and learning from your mistakes are all elements of this.
Forming good habits at an early stage are key to this. You need to develop a reflective approach, taking time to think over events and your part in them (for example, you could keep a reflective journal). Doing this will help you to become more aware of your responses and how to manage them appropriately. Another aspect is self-care, lawyering is demanding and stressful at times and it is important that you take time to look after yourself and ensure you are in good shape both physically and mentally. If you are struggling, speak to someone and ask for help.
Developing soft skills is a part of legal practice that Law Schools often neglect. However, to become a successful lawyer in today’s climate, you need to ensure you can use and demonstrate these to enhance both your professional profile and your life in practice.
Giving us a snippet of barrister knowledge every month with our #WednesdayWisdom, here Scott Haley, Family Practice Manager at One Pump Court, clarifies the traditional ‘bow’ to the court.
Whether a court official, lawyer or member of the public, it is customary to ‘bow’ to the court when entering or leaving the room.
Even young junior clerks are required to do so – often whilst simultaneously balancing 4 lever arch files and 7 copies of authorities – which is no mean feat.
(Obviously, you’re not required to bow when the courtroom is empty, which would be plain stupid. Even the Bar, with their seemingly endless array of bizarre traditions, know when enough is enough.)
Some of you may be surprised to learn, however, that when court officials, lawyers or members of the public do bow, they are not doing this to the judge, but the royal arms that they sit in front of.
The Royal Coat of Arms came into being in 1399 under King Henry IV. They appear in every courtroom in England and Wales (with the exception of the magistrate’s court in the City of London), demonstrating that justice comes from the monarch, and that a law court is part of the Royal Court (hence its name).
Judges and magistrates are official representatives of the crown. Barristers are not bowing to the judge, they are bowing to the coat of arms, to show respect for the queen’s justice, and, indirectly, to those presiding over the case.
When bowing to the court, barristers are not required to bow like Butler Carson to Lord Crawley in Downton Abbey. A court bow resembles a dignified nod. Technically, it is called a ‘neck bow’ during which the individual makes a slight inclination at the waist and drops his or her eyes.
Another requirement is to stand up from their seat when the judge or magistrate enters the room. The words “all rise” will be declared - demonstrating another show of respect to Judges as representatives of the crown.
Philip Hammond has done something extraordinarily positive in this Budget – he’s not tinkered with pensions to raise cash, affirms the CEO of one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory organisations.
The praise from Nigel Green, Founder and Chief Executive of deVere Group, comes after the Chancellor delivered the Autumn Budget 2017 a week ago today, in which there was a marked lack of changes to pensions.
Observers noted that the only major change was that the lifetime allowance for pension savings will increase in line with the Consumer Prices Index, rising to £1,030,000 for the tax year 2018 to 2019.
Mr Green comments: “Philip Hammond has done something extraordinarily positive in this Budget – he’s not tinkered with pensions to raise cash.
“This is particularly remarkable because he needs an extra £8bn for the expenditure to which the government has already committed – and he has resisted the temptation to raid pensions.”
He continues: “For far too long successive British governments have deemed people’s hard-earned retirement funds as an easy, ‘go-to’ option when it needs to bolster revenue.
“This has been the approach because the governments can politically get away with it because there is a good deal of money locked within pensions, most of this belongs to the better-off section of society, and they get tax relief.’’
He adds: “As such, this is an important step in the right direction. Finally, it would appear that the Treasury is understanding that pensions are typically people’s most important asset and should not be seen as ‘low hanging fruit’ to be plundered by the State.”
Mr Green concludes: “We are delighted that Mr Hammond has left pensions alone in this Budget and we hope that this lack of meddling is the start of a new approach.
“This is positive for both pension savers and the pension industry as pensions are, of course, long-term and continual short-termist tinkering is counterproductive and misguided.”
(Source: deVere Group)
A leading independent medical reporting organisation has responded to an academic’s call for an overhaul of the claims process before the government presses ahead with plans to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000.
Reacting to comments made by Cardiff Law School academic Annette Morris at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum that ministers must ‘adapt’ the claims system and portal to handle litigants in person (LiP) before considering raising the small claims limit, David Stothard, an expert in the medical and legal aspects of personal injury claims and director of MAPS Medical Reporting says that for LiPs not to struggle with the claims process would require a complete overhaul of the system.
The intervention follows confirmation from Justice Secretary David Lidington that the current government intends to proceed with a proposed Civil Liability Bill, which would see a 100% increase in the small claims limit for all non-road traffic-related personal injury cases and a fivefold increase in the limit for road accident cases.
“The idea of a system able to withstand thousands of lay people bringing forward claims up to the value of £5,000 – some of which would be medically complex - without help from qualified solicitors, takes quite a leap of imagination. It is incredibly ambitious, bordering on fanciful. Is the government tied up as it is with Brexit really going to commit to the kind of huge IT project that will be required to deliver a workable and fair system?” Mr. Stothard asked.
“It’s extremely questionable if there is the political will for the substantial investment required and without it the likely outcome is chaos and gross unfairness. An implementation date of April 2019 as is currently being mooted by commentators is starting to look somewhat unlikely.”
MAPS Medical Reporting argues that without substantial changes to the claims portal, it would be near-impossible for litigants in person to effectively use the MedCo system.
David Stothard, Managing Director of MAPS Medical Reporting said: “Ms. Morris – repeating a government line - says that most minor injury claims are ‘straightforward and routine’, however the automated portal and MedCo systems are far from it.
“Selecting and appointing appropriate medical experts and procuring accurate medical reports are essential to lodging a claim and getting the best outcome for injured people. Unless the government really doesn’t care about the quality of the medical evidence or for that matter justice, you have to ask, if qualified professionals from major law firms have raised concerns about the efficacy and ease of dealing with MedCo, how will injured lay people cope?”
(Source: MAPS Medical Reporting)
Over the past week you will have seen a lot of news on the resignation of Robert Mugabe, following a coup from the military in Zimbabwe, and the consequent inauguration of a new President, Emmerson Mnangagwa. But where did this southern African nation’s complex socio-political tension emerge from? Below Girish Thanki, Partner at Stuart Miller, provides an insightful three stage breakdown of the situation, from the inception of Mugabe’s reign, to today’s current events.
Zimbabwe is a landlocked country to the north of South Africa. It is separated from Zambia in the north by the mighty Zambezi River. It has been in the news because of a bloodless army coup which deposed President Mugabe, who has been the leader of the country since independence from Great Britain in 1980.
1. It was previously known as Southern Rhodesia, deriving its name from the British coloniser, Cecil Rhodes. He established British rule in the late 19th Its rich farmland and copper and diamond mines made it a popular destination for white settlers. Although a British colony in reality, it was ruled by the white colonisers wholly excluding African suffrage.
While most of the countries in Africa were attaining independence from their colonial rulers, the white settlers led by the notorious white supremacist, Ian Smith, led a campaign to pressurise Great Britain to grant the country independence to be ruled by the whites. His campaign failed, which led to the declaration of Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Most black African leaders were imprisoned, including Robert Mugabe. The UDI led to sanctions against the country by Great Britain, supported by the United Nations.
2. The sanctions were successful which led to the country being granted independence in 1980. In the subsequent elections. Robert Mugabe’s ZANU party won the mandate to govern. ZANU incorporated with the opposition party, ZAPU, and even amalgamated the two parties to be called ZANU-PF. Soon the country became a one-party state and Mugabe, emboldened by his large mandate, turned the country into a Marxist style-economy with state control of all economic activity.
At the same time, many thousands of profitable white owned commercial farms were forcibly confiscated by the state without compensation. Many crimes were committed against the white settlers. Mugabe claimed that the matter of compensation was for the British government. Instead of the land being given to the poor peasant farmers, the political elite became owners, including Robert Mugabe and influential members of ZANU-PF. There was a flight of capital from the country from sophisticated money laundering operations. From being a large producer of food, Zimbabwe came to be reliant on foreign aid.
The country slid into poverty with rampant inflation and the central bank had to produce large denomination notes so that people could pay for basic necessities. Robert Mugabe’s government imprisonment and tortured many of the political opponents and curtailed press freedom. There was rampant and widespread fraud in all wakes of economic life. Crime. After economic depression and worsening foreign relations, Zimbabwe developed close relationships with China who is the greatest buyer of Zimbabwe’s tobacco and mining produce. It also has a major role in the improvement to Zimbabwe’s infrastructure.
3. The question of Mugabe’s succession became a live issue. It was largely perceived that Mugabe’s second wife, Grace, was his choice to become the next president of the country. This caused great resentment in the country as she was perceived as an avaricious woman, who openly flaunted her ill-gotten wealth. She was thought of having committed many crimes with impunity.
It was the sacking of the vice president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, which made the armed forces engineer a bloodless coup to force Mugabe into retirement.
Now reinstated as Zimbabwean President, Emmerson Mnangagwa is set to put together a team of new cabinet ministers and the country can hopefully return to a stable democracy, with a revival in its ailing economy.
Like with all high-asset marriages, the recently announced engagement between prince Harry & Meghan Markle will likely come with a prenuptial agreement, which God forbid, they could resort to in future if things go south.
Following Clarence House’s official announcement Bryan Scant, Solicitor at Coffin Mew, suggests that the royal couple would be wise to make a prenuptial agreement top of their to-do list: “After much speculation, the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has been announced. As with many couples, Prince Harry brings sizeable assets into his impending marriage – including a royal title and a home in one of England’s most famous residences. Many couples in such a position use a prenuptial agreement to ensure that everyone knows where they stand now, just in case there is a problem in the future.
“In the romantic fervour surrounding an engagement – a royal engagement, at that – it can be easy to overlook formalities, particularly those that may seem to bring doubt on the relationship. Rather than considering a prenuptial agreement as pre-empting a divorce, Prince Harry and Ms Markle should consider it an insurance policy, something to be put in the bottom of a palace drawer hopefully never to be used.
“There will be a wild number of royal wedding protocols that must be followed by the happy couple. As the Royal Family’s attitude to divorce has softened in recent years, it’s about time that a robust prenuptial agreement is added to that list.”
