header-logo header-logo

03 December 2015
Issue: 7679 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Family concern over litigants in person

Lawyers’ prime worry is the rise in litigants in person

One in five family lawyers cite the increased numbers of litigants in person (LiPs) as their prime concern and a sizeable majority think pensions will become increasingly important when dividing up a couple’s finances, new research shows.

The top issues for family lawyers, according to the annual Grant Thornton Matrimonial Survey, are LiPs (according to 21% of respondents), the lack of legal aid for most family law cases (17%) and courts not being fit for purpose (14%).

The results of the survey mirror those of previous years. Respondents were asked about the areas in which they would like to see a change in legislation. As in 2014, one quarter of lawyers would like to see no-fault divorces introduced, followed by the reintroduction of Calderbank offers generally in financial proceedings (20%) and protection for cohabiting couples (19%).

Divorcing couples have been given greater flexibility over their financial assets by the pensions legislation. More than three-quarters of respondents believe pensions will become more important in reaching financial settlements. However, 62% of solicitors think pensions will be treated as a more liquid asset only in cases where one or more of parties is over 55 years, and only 18% feel pensions will be treated as a more liquid asset in all cases.

Nick Andrews, partner at Grant Thornton UK, says: “The introduction of the single Family Court last year was a revolutionary step, yet professionals still remain concerned that the court system is not fit for purpose to support LiPs.”

Jo Edwards, chair of family law organisation Resolution, says she is not surprised by the survey results and that the lack of funding for legal representation is leading to “higher conflict during divorce”.

Issue: 7679 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll