Interesting Case: Record Divorce Payout

A Russian billionaire has been ordered to pay his estranged wife £453m in a divorce settlement at a British court.

The payment from the 61-year-old, a former oil and gas trader, to his ex-wife, 41, has been described as one of the biggest awards made by a UK court.

During a High Court hearing, a judge said the couple met and married in Moscow before moving to Surrey.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said he had awarded the woman 41.5% of the "total marital assets".

The judge made a ruling preventing the man, from the Caucasus, and the woman, who was born in Eastern Europe, from being identified.

Both were given indefinite leave to remain in the UK, where they have lived for a number of years.

Luxury apartments

Nearly five years ago, the court was told, the husband sold shares in a Russian company for $1.3 billion (£1bn).

He then bought both the couple's sons flats in a luxury London development - one for £29 million and the other for £7 million.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said the woman had been a housewife and mother to the couple's children.

The husband argued he had made a "special contribution" to the generation of wealth, but the judge concluded the man and woman had made "equal contributions to the welfare of the family".

His ex-wife claimed the "total net marital wealth" was just over £1 billion which had been built up during their marriage.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said the reasons for the man's "sudden decision" to no longer contest the case were "unclear", but it seemed that he had previously argued that he was wealthy before they married.

Neither party was in court for the final ruling.

In 2014, Jamie Cooper-Hohn, wife of financier Sir Chris Hohn, was awarded more than £330 million.

Legal experts said the Cooper-Hohn award was "certainly" one of the biggest made in the UK, although divorce proceedings are often conducted in private hearings.

Courtesy of BBC

Learn more legal English at: https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Howard/e/B00GMS03VA

The People vs O.J. Simpson

This case is a great example to use to help explain the notion of "Standard of Proof". How come the defendant was found not guilty in the criminal trial, but liable in the civil trial? Check the summary here: "The murder case of former Heisman Trophy winner and star NFL fullback O.J. Simpson captivated U.S. audiences for months. It began with the televised police chase of Simpson in a white Ford Bronco through Los Angeles roads on June 17, 1994. Simpson married Nicole Brown in 1985, but the couple split in 1992. On June 11, 1994, Simpson and Brown attended their daughter's play in Los Angeles and then parted ways. Brown went to dinner with friends, and Simpson left to pack for a flight to Chicago scheduled later that night. The next morning, neighbours found Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman murdered outside of Brown's Los Angeles condo. Evidence seemed to point in Simpson's direction. For instance, the limo driver who picked Simpson up to take him to the airport the night of the murder testified that when he arrived at the house and rang the doorbell, no one answered. While waiting, the driver then saw a large black person in dark clothes enter Simpson's house. Minutes later, Simpson answered the door. Blood was also found in some of Simpson's belongings, including his white Ford Bronco and a pair of socks. The trial began on Jan. 24, 1995, after Simpson pled not guilty to the two murders. His defence team was led by Johnnie Cochran, who turned the focus of the trial proceedings to alleged racism of the lead police detective in the case. Since the jury was majority-black, some felt that Cochran manipulated the race issue as a ploy to gain their sympathies. After more than four months of court proceedings, the jury acquitted Simpson ­of both counts of murder. In light of the evidence, many questioned the jury's decision. And, in the wrongful death civil suit brought by the Brown and Goldman families soon after, Simpson was found liable." Learn more with our law dictionaries and exercise books at 

http://astore.amazon.com/legengblo21-20

 Courtesy of howstuffworks.com

The Global Lawyer | Freshfields bans 'Dear Sirs' from all global comms

Hi all, interesting legal writing change of direction by London magic circle firm:



The Global Lawyer | Freshfields bans 'Dear Sirs' from all global comms

Learn more from our law dictionaries and exercise books from our Amazon store:

http://astore.amazon.com/legengblo21-20

Quiz Time 2nd January 2016

Quiz Time!

What is the missing word or phrase: The legal English term for a person who is not a lawyer or is not legally qualified is a ____________.

A. Member of the public

B. Layperson

C. Jury

D. Witness

All answers, shares and comments are welcome. The answer will be posted on Thursday. Have a wonderful week :)

www.legalenglishbookstore.com

A Quick Introduction to Tort

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Tort law covers areas where somebody’s ‘wrong’ causes loss to another person, without the two parties having to be in a contractual relationship. The name comes from the fact that tort is French for ‘wrong’ – this is the law of wrongs. The big case which expanded this area of the law is also a strange one.

Mrs Donoghue was in a café with her friend, who bought her a ginger beer. She was ill after having drunk some of it because the bottle had a dead snail in it! However, she had not bought the bottle so she could not sue for breach of contract — she had no contract with the shop owner or the bottle manufacturer. Instead, she brought a case in negligence, a part of tort law, saying that the bottle manufacturer had a duty to make sure that the ginger beer was made in a clean place where snails could not get into the bottles.

This is where Lord Atkin set out the famous ‘neighbour principle’: I have a duty towards “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question”. This sounds like you have to think about the possible impact of everything you do on anybody it could affect, but in reality there are many limits on negligence law – including that you have to breach that duty of care. Lots of things are relevant to breach but it is overall about how reasonable the action (or decision not to act) was. One element is quite interesting though, especially for those of you who are about to start learning to drive…

Courtesy of Oxford Royale

Answer to last week's quiz

Here's the answer to last week's quiz:

The common name for a business structure that is a non-profit making organisation run for the benefit of others is a _________.

B. Charity

Have a wonderful Christmas everyone. We'll have more quizzes (and books!) next year.

Enjoy your festivities

Mike

Law Quiz 19 December 2015

Hi all, Legal English quiz time from Legal English Books :)

Please post your answers below:

The common name for a business structure that is a non-profit making organisation run for the benefit of others is a _________.

A. Partnership

B. Charity

C. Consortium

D. Venture

All ideas and comments welcome. Please do visit our brand new website for all our books :)

www.legalenglishbookstore.com

Thanks !