Financial Order- self representing

[Adam]

9

Hi Adam, please remember this is only my personal opinion but having been through the process, I wouldn't change the way I used legal advice and representation.

Typically it can be about 3-6 months between each hearing.

I'd definitely use a DAB for the final hearing. As for the FDR, this is all about preference and the likelihood of you settling or going to final. I always knew my hearing was going to final, my ex was asking for far too much so I knew at the FDR, regardless of what the indicative view from the judge was going to be, the ex would always try to go for more. If you think your ex may use the FDR in the attempt to settle and it's in your best interests to finalise things earlier (I was happy to drag things out, I was in no rush to get the right outcome) then consider taking a barrister.

A barrister at the FDR will help position your case correctly. One negative to me was my case was articulated as clearly as I would have hoped but this didn't really matter to me. The judge at the FDR therefore suggested a more favourable outcome to the ex at final. Whilst she was pleased with this, I knew that I didn't have the opportunity to explain my finances to the judge and because she did have a DAB, they argued and pushed their case for a far more favourable outcome in their favour. They attempted to settle outside of court based on the judges opinion but I declined.

This paid off for more, I knew the indicative view from the judge was unaffordable so I pushed it to final, got representation and a far more favourable outcome in my favour was reached. Don't get me wrong, she still took a good chunk of the cash as our earnings are hugely different but I was tens of thousands better off.

Hope that helps and makes sense.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Very clear now

 

[Adam]

9

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Very clear now

Hi
As I am self representing say my total legal cost is £20k, for my ex say total legal cost say is £100k as she has a solicitor.

When the judge split the assets under final order.
How the legal cost is treated? Say under 50:50 split is the legal cost is excluded ? Or Indirectly I will be paying half of total legal cost?

 

[Oneofmany]

she has burned money dude

 

[Ash]

Afraid I don't know the answer to that one, but someone else might know.

 

[Jumper85]

Hi
As I am self representing say my total legal cost is £20k, for my ex say total legal cost say is £100k as she has a solicitor.

When the judge split the assets under final order.
How the legal cost is treated? Say under 50:50 split is the legal cost is excluded ? Or Indirectly I will be paying half of total legal cost?

Hi @Adam

The legal fees have to be proportionate to the total value of the assets, so if you ex has spent £100k in legal fees because your finances are complex and you have +£1m then the judge won't do anything, as the cost verses the assets maybe deemed reasonable. If she's spent £100k and your assets are £200k that's a different matter. The judge would see this as careless and disproportionate and therefore take it into consideration as part of the distribution of finances.

Unfortunately what is deemed as proportionate is purely down to the judge.

 

[Adam]

Hi @Adam

The legal fees have to be proportionate to the total value of the assets, so if you ex has spent £100k in legal fees because your finances are complex and you have +£1m then the judge won't do anything, as the cost verses the assets maybe deemed reasonable. If she's spent £100k and your assets are £200k that's a different matter. The judge would see this as careless and disproportionate and therefore take it into consideration as part of the distribution of finances.

Unfortunately what is deemed as proportionate is purely down to the judge.

Thanks, sorry not clear.

say it is proportionate: then indirectly I will be paying half? Or still she has to pay 100% of hers, Without affecting my 50%?
Say if not proportionate, then she will pay 100% of hers? Without affecting my 50%?

 

[Jumper85]

Thanks, sorry not clear.

say it is proportionate: then indirectly I will be paying half? Or still she has to pay 100% of hers, Without affecting my 50%?
Say if not proportionate, then she will pay 100% of hers? Without affecting my 50%?

Hi, there simply isn't a calculation to it and it's purely case by case.

Whilst it disproportionate legal fees will be taken into consider, there are welfare issues to consider such as children and how would they be housed if for example one party would only be awarded sufficiently to clear their legal fees. There's just no simple calculation to it.

 

[Adam]

Hi, there simply isn't a calculation to it and it's purely case by case.

Whilst it disproportionate legal fees will be taken into consider, there are welfare issues to consider such as children and how would they be housed if for example one party would only be awarded sufficiently to clear their legal fees. There's just no simple calculation to it.

Thanks

 

[MountainGoat]

This surely is highly wrong as let's say stbx blows 30,000 in legal costs then she will be laughing all the way as then the judges will see that she's in debt and award her more of the house split. She's got it perfectly good.
Due to her making a financial mess with her own legal fees, then we have to mop up! Surely this cant be true!

 

[Jumper85]

This surely is highly wrong as let's say stbx blows 30,000 in legal costs then she will be laughing all the way as then the judges will see that she's in debt and award her more of the house split. She's got it perfectly good.
Due to her making a financial mess with her own legal fees, then we have to mop up! Surely this cant be true!

As per my post, the legal costs have to be proportionate.

Whilst £30,000 might seem a significant amount of money to most of us, from the courts perspective, if someone needs the courts intervention because agreements can't be made without it, legal costs are to be expected. Given a barrister can charge between £1,500 - £5,000 for a single days work puts that into perspective and shows going into a final hearing of legal costs of £30,000 wouldn't be typically frowned upon for cases that have been through the entire journey.

Again, what is important is the proportionate point. Spending £30,000 when the equity is £60,000 would be taken into consideration by the judge and court, spending £30,000 when the equity is £200,000 wouldn't be.

Look at some of the published final hearing outcomes, it's not unusual for legal costs in messy cases to exceed £100,000 and the court still deems it proportionate.

 

[MountainGoat]

Thankyou for your reply.
My ex has made it clear via her solicitor that she has spent over £21,000 so far on her legal costs.
I've worked out that if the house is sold or she buys me out, I would get around £70,000

I just don't want her to steal anymore money.

 

[Adam]

As per my post, the legal costs have to be proportionate.

Whilst £30,000 might seem a significant amount of money to most of us, from the courts perspective, if someone needs the courts intervention because agreements can't be made without it, legal costs are to be expected. Given a barrister can charge between £1,500 - £5,000 for a single days work puts that into perspective and shows going into a final hearing of legal costs of £30,000 wouldn't be typically frowned upon for cases that have been through the entire journey.

Again, what is important is the proportionate point. Spending £30,000 when the equity is £60,000 would be taken into consideration by the judge and court, spending £30,000 when the equity is £200,000 wouldn't be.

Look at some of the published final hearing outcomes, it's not unusual for legal costs in messy cases to exceed £100,000 and the court still deems it proportionate.

what does proportionate mean interms of asset split@ that means in earlier example £100k legal cost => indirectly both will split the cost? or person spent £100k has to pay from their split.

 

[Jumper85]

what does proportionate mean interms of asset split@ that means in earlier example £100k legal cost => indirectly both will split the cost? or person spent £100k has to pay from their split.

The person that incurred the costs always has to pay the debt/legal fees.

 

[Adam]

The person that incurred the costs always has to pay the debt/legal fees.

Thanks