At Awan Solicitors. we have successfully dealt with thousands of cases relating to children matters, divorce and financial orders, inheritance law, money claims, contract disputes and benefit fraud/overpayments, but occasionally we had cases which have unusual and difficult aspects to them and by using our expertise, legal knowledge and skills achieved successful outcomes for our clients. Here are some examples we dealt with in the last few years:
Stopping an abusive father from having any or direct contact with their child
The father whose immigration status was questionable and had been in prison for supplying Class A drugs made an application for child arrangements order [cao] for contact with his children.
It was clear that he had done this to remain in the UK after other avenues of staying in the UK had been exhausted. There were allegations of domestic abuse [DA] in the presence of the children.
Various judges and Cafcass suggested that contact could take place with safeguards in place but the mother contested this. At the 3 day hearing represented by Mr Awan almost all the DA allegations were proven; and evidence relating to father`s immigration and criminal activity was presented to show that the children were safe with the mother and at risk with the father whose immigration status was unclear and had associated with criminal network.
The court was persuaded at the final hearing to make an order that the father does not have any direct contact with children and was prohibited from trying to contact them or trace them.
The father was represented by an experienced counsel at all the hearings. This was a draconian order but Mr Awan was able to argue that it was better for the children not to have any contact with father who was abusing the mother and involved in criminal activity and using them for his immigration purposes.
Mr Awan dealt with the case from start to finish and represented the client at each stage with the final successful outcome.
Obtaining a rare costs order in a children/family case
We were instructed by a father in a Child Arrangements Order for contact or spending time with order. Not only were we successful in defending the client against unfounded allegations of domestic abuse but succeeded against the odds and obtained a court order for costs against the mother. It is very rare and unusual for the court to award a client’s costs in family cases involving children, unless a party can show that the conduct of the other party was unreasonable or reprehensible in the way s/he conducted the proceedings.
In this case Mr Awan was able to prove that the mother made allegations which were shown at trial to be among other things totally false. Telling lies in family cases does not amount to unreasonable and reprehensible conduct but how the lies impacted the proceedings and how the case was brought about does and in this Mr Awan was able to show this. At the trial, the court refused to make an award for costs. Mr Awan made an application to the court for the matter to be listed for a costs hearing and after a full day’s hearing, he successfully obtained an award for costs incurred by our client throughout the entire proceedings. It was Mr Awan`s determination and knowledge of the law that resulted in an unusual and productive outcome.
Overturning terms of a financial consent order against the odds
A recent Divorce, Financial Order and Child Arrangements Order case had some very unusual and difficult elements to it, including removal of a child from the UK. Mr Awan acted for the client, successfully challenging an agreed consent order for financial settlement made at the Financial Dispute Resolution [FDR] hearing on the basis of change of circumstances and the effect of Covid-19 on the parties` finances.
The leading cases of Xydhias v Xydhias (1998) EWCA Civ 1966 and Rothwell v Rothwell (2008) EWCA Civ 1600 effectively bars any changes to such an agreement because the agreement was made by consent where the parties were legally represented. Mr Awan represented the client himself with the wife having a senior counsel and a senior partner from a well know city firm.
Mr Awan was successful in changing the terms of the financial agreement from the wife being awarded equivalent of 75% and husband 25% to giving the wife 60% and husband 40%. The total assets were nearly a million pounds and the change in the financial terms (£150,000 extra for the client) was significant.
Successfully obtained a litigation conduct costs order against wife
and saved £80,000 in costs and maintenance arrears for the client. Mr Awan represented a client whose wife a made a claim for maintenance arrears of £40,000 during divorce proceedings. A sum of £80,000 from the husband`s share of the net proceeds from the sale of marital home was held back to offset the wife`s arrears and her solicitors` fees estimated at £40,000.
Mr Awan attended the hearing and succeeded in preserving the £80,000 for the husband and obtained a substantial costs order against the wife for litigation costs for her unreasonable and reprehensible conduct during the proceedings. The Judge in his judgement stated that he was not going to make an award for costs but Mr Awan argued against that citing litigation conduct with the wife`s chicanery, dishonesty, duplicity and perfidiousness during the proceedings and the Judge subsequently reversed his decision and awarded litigation costs against the wife.
The client not only got his £80,000 but also his costs from the wife. Mr Awan did not give up even though the Judge had indicated that he would not be making any costs orders. Mr Awan succeeded in saving £80,000 for the client and through grit and determination got litigation costs as well.
Stopping a party from making applications to delay and to stop contact with child
After 10 years and 23 hearings, it was hoped that we achieved a finality to the mother preventing contact and making false allegations with applications to vary the court orders almost every year.
The case started when the child was born and the parties separated. The child's mother did everything she could to alienate and stop the child from seeing his father. Sadly, Children Services refused to assist and Cafcass took a particular view of the father and left it to the court to decide.
At a recent hearing Mr Awan applied for and successfully obtained a very rare court order where neither party could make an application to the court to vary the court order without leave of the court. It does not bar the father from making an application to enforce the court order in the event of a breach of the court order but does stop the mother from making applications to vary the court order as tactic to stop and delay contact.
The significance of the court order is that this stops mother from using the court to stop contact and abuse the system. In this case mother was represented by a counsel/barrister and the child by a counsel who sits as a part-time family judge.
High Court FGM Order and successful challenge
Late last year Mr Awan dealt with a case where the father had been accused by his wife of attempting to take their daughters to Africa for a Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) procedure. The High Court made various prohibited steps orders and FGM orders. The mother was on legal aid represented by a reputed city firm of solicitors and 1st tier family counsel. The father had lost his job due to his passport and ID card being held by the court and he was not able to prove his immigration status for his job.
Mr Awan acted on a nominal fee basis. After investigating the matter and reviewing the mother`s evidence supporting the allegations, Mr Awan prepared the case accordingly. At the hearing Mr Awan was able to successfully have all the court orders against his client dismissed by a High Court Judge where the wife was represented by a counsel and solicitor at court. Mr Awan`s knowledge, expertise and advocacy skills achieved another success.
Children matter where father was controlling and refused to accept to the child`s detriment that the child had mental health issues
Last year the father using mediation tried to trick his partner in to agreeing to a joint live with order and control the contact arrangements. He used every method of control to set his own terms for the contact arrangements.
The child had been referred for ADHD and Autism. He used his parental rights having parental responsibility to bully and control the mother. After contact the child would come back traumatised because the father ignored the child's neurodivergence issues. The father claimed that the mother was saying this to claim state benefits. Two medical experts had seen the child and made a referral for a full assessment and the school had also undertaken various provisions.
The father refused to accept that the child may be suffering from the health issues, putting the child`s wellbeing at risk. The mother made an application for a "live with" order and fixed defined contact and the father later on asked for a joint "live with" order. Initially, the district judge commented that the father had parental responsibility and could do whatever he liked during contact as there was no medical assessment.
This emboldened the father and his unacceptable behaviour got worse. The mother and Cafcass producing a fair and measured report with supporting evidence and the court at the final hearing had no choice but to make a strict contact order focused on the mental health issues which took the child`s welfare as the most important factor in to account.
It was a very difficult case because the father was a litigant in person [LiP] who believed he could anything because he had Parental Responsibility and abused his LiP status to flout the rules and procedures, and when challenged made formal complaints accusing the legal advisors and justices of bias among other things. At the final hearing Mr Awan had the father`s application dismissed with a "live with" order for the mother and strict conditions during contact with child.
Divorce tracing husband abroad after over 20 years separation
In this case Mr Awan acted for the wife living in the UK. The couple separated over 20 years ago and the husband moved abroad, losing all contact. It took some effort and time to trace the husband who was now living with his new partner in Singapore. Our client has a house, substantial pension and savings. Mr Awan successfully managed to settle the matter with both parties not making a claims against the other and finalised the divorce on an amicable basis.
Inheritance where the Will was not signed
In this inheritance claim, the Will was not executed due to Covid restrictions. Letter of Administration [LoA] had been obtained on the basis of intestacy but the issues concerning distribution of assets remained because one the of the beneficiaries refused to co-operate.
The trustee/beneficiary who obtained the LoA intended to follow the testator`s wishes in accordance with the unsigned Will but the other party would not co-operate and left the matter in limbo. Mr Awan managed to settle the matter where our client remained protected against any potential future claims due to the difficulty in administering the estate. This shows that not every case has to go to court to resolve the issues where one has difficult members of the family or beneficiaries to deal with.
Inheritance claim where several Wills were made and ownership of properties was unclear
Another inheritance case where there had been several changes to the Will over time and parties believed that they had differing claims. To make matters more complicated, it was unclear whether the two properties left in the estate were as a joint ownership or tenancy in common based on the archaic wording used by the land registry over 40 years ago.
After obtaining the various documents, Wills and land registry documents Mr Awan was able to advise the client on the law and the beneficial interest of the parties involved. This case illustrates the issues where someone says one thing about leaving their estate to a party or parties but when they die the Will says something different.
In this case the issues were made more complicated because when the properties were registered they did not make it clear on the application as to whether it was in joint names or tenancy in common and the land registry took it upon itself and added a clause which changed the legal and beneficial ownership of two properties. New Transfer [TR1] forms are more simpler and based on a solicitor`s advice the correct boxes are ticked for certainty avoiding difficulties later on.
