At MG Legal, your property solicitors Preston, we understand that the term ‘Japanese Knotweed’ would be the last thing on your mind when moving home. To your conveyancing solicitor Preston, however, this is a term of high importance within the conveyancing process. 

 

Recently, the Family Court could be argued to be making a conscious effort to move into the 21st Century. Whilst the prospect of an online divorce seems quite obvious to some, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service has only just rolled the pilot scheme out to four solicitors' firms. Currently, Solicitors must complete the documentation either by hand or on the computer, and then sign the same (or ask their client to approve and sign the petition).  

 

The new system allows users to complete the petition online, through a series of tick boxes and free-text fields which have to be completed, and then share the petition electronically with their client. Once approved, the petition is submitted online, with a Marriage Certificate being sent as a PDF document, and payment to be made either by cheque (unfortunately, this still has to be posted) or through the Pay by Account (PBA) system in place.  

 

Just because a person does not necessarily live in the United Kingdom their whole life, this does not mean that they are not entitled to issue divorce proceedings here. 

 

On the divorce petition, your divorce solicitors Preston, MG Legal, will be able to advise you why the Court has jurisdiction to deal with your proceedings. In Section 5 of any divorce, dissolution or judicial separation petition, the Court needs to know why you think they have the jurisdiction (basically, the legal geographical power) to deal with your case.  

 

Usually, in the case of two British Citizens who have lived in the UK since birth, the reasons are straight forward; both are usually habitual residents and domiciled in the England. However, for some couples, the issue of jurisdiction is not always as straight forward. 

We’ve all been on the receiving end of a ‘cold’ call. You’ll be relaxing at home, only for your mobile telephone, or home ‘phone to ring, and it’s somebody from a call centre, asking if you’ve’ had a road traffic accident in the last 3 years’.. 

Most parents would not think twice before removing their own children out of the country. However, for parents who cannot necessarily agree the best parenting strategy, it can be a constant worry that the other will remove the children from England or Wales (or the UK in general), and that they will then have no way of getting their children back.  

 

Although some people would not think it, in some cases the removal of a child to a country without the other's parents consent can be classed as abduction under the Child Abduction Act 1984. For example, if both parents have Parental Responsibility or if the Court have specifically ordered that the child cannot be removed but one parent does, this could be classed as abduction. The punishment for abduction ranges but can lead to a prison sentence and fines.  

Before the Supreme Court's Judgement handed down on 30th July 2018, the right to make an end-of-life decision on behalf of someone in a vegetative state was controlled by the Court of Protection. Also controlling a person's affairs should they lack capacity and not have appointed an Attorney (see Lasting Powers of Attorney and who should make one), the Court of Protection previously ruled on cases such as whether a person's feeding tubes should be withdrawn, allowing a person to die naturally, when they are unable to make the decision themselves.  

 

Although both the patient's family and the Doctors may agree that removing the feeding tubes is the best way forward for a person in a vegetative state, the Doctors usually have to apply to the Court of Protection to rule that they are allowed to do so. However, following yesterday's Judgement, if both the patient's family and the Doctors are in agreement, they can now remove the tubes of a person without going through the Court.