Pub Date : 2023-02-26DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175553
B. Sloan
In Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB) (noted Sloan 2022), Kerr J excited much controversy by suggesting that detrimental reliance may not need to be shown by a joint legal owner seeking to establish an increased share of the family home under a common intention constructive trust. In a swiftly following judgment ([2022] EWCA Civ 1648), however, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the requirement of detrimental reliance in both ‘sole’ and ‘joint names’ cases, albeit also concluding that the case did not turn on the point after all. Lee Hudson and Jayne Hathway, a separating unmarried couple, agreed in a lengthy email correspondence that Mr Hudson would retain full ownership of some shares and a pension, while Ms Hathway would have the equity in Picnic House, their former joint home, its contents, savings and income from endowments. The house was in joint names, without an express declaration of trust. Mr Hudson sought an order for sale of Picnic House under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, with equal division of the proceeds. Ms Hathway agreed to sale but argued that she was entitled to all of the sale proceeds on the basis of a common intention on which she had detrimentally relied (see Sloan 2022 for more detail). At first instance, Judge Ralton found a clear agreement, forming the basis of a constructive trust, that Ms Hathway was beneficially entitled to all of the equity in Picnic House. He accepted that she had detrimentally relied on the agreement by giving up her claims to assets in Mr Hudson’s sole name. Mr Hudson appealed on the basis that the judge was wrong to find detrimental reliance. Ms Hathway countered that it was unnecessary to find such reliance in a joint names case, and that in any event the judge was correct to find detrimental reliance. Kerr J seemingly agreed with Ms Hudson that proof of detriment was not required in ‘joint names’ cases, but found it established on the facts. Mr Hudson appealed again. Originally, the submissions related to detrimental reliance. But at the Court of Appeal’s prompting, and with its permission, Ms Hathway’s counsel successfully advanced the new, alternative, argument that two of Mr Hudson’s emails complied with the statutory formalities for the disposition of an interest in land, so that the detrimental reliance issue did not arise. As Lewison LJ (giving the lead judgment with which Andrews and Nugee LJJ agreed) recognised, the question of whether the emails complied with statutory formalities was
{"title":"Detrimental reliance and the family home: orthodoxy restored?","authors":"B. Sloan","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175553","url":null,"abstract":"In Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB) (noted Sloan 2022), Kerr J excited much controversy by suggesting that detrimental reliance may not need to be shown by a joint legal owner seeking to establish an increased share of the family home under a common intention constructive trust. In a swiftly following judgment ([2022] EWCA Civ 1648), however, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the requirement of detrimental reliance in both ‘sole’ and ‘joint names’ cases, albeit also concluding that the case did not turn on the point after all. Lee Hudson and Jayne Hathway, a separating unmarried couple, agreed in a lengthy email correspondence that Mr Hudson would retain full ownership of some shares and a pension, while Ms Hathway would have the equity in Picnic House, their former joint home, its contents, savings and income from endowments. The house was in joint names, without an express declaration of trust. Mr Hudson sought an order for sale of Picnic House under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, with equal division of the proceeds. Ms Hathway agreed to sale but argued that she was entitled to all of the sale proceeds on the basis of a common intention on which she had detrimentally relied (see Sloan 2022 for more detail). At first instance, Judge Ralton found a clear agreement, forming the basis of a constructive trust, that Ms Hathway was beneficially entitled to all of the equity in Picnic House. He accepted that she had detrimentally relied on the agreement by giving up her claims to assets in Mr Hudson’s sole name. Mr Hudson appealed on the basis that the judge was wrong to find detrimental reliance. Ms Hathway countered that it was unnecessary to find such reliance in a joint names case, and that in any event the judge was correct to find detrimental reliance. Kerr J seemingly agreed with Ms Hudson that proof of detriment was not required in ‘joint names’ cases, but found it established on the facts. Mr Hudson appealed again. Originally, the submissions related to detrimental reliance. But at the Court of Appeal’s prompting, and with its permission, Ms Hathway’s counsel successfully advanced the new, alternative, argument that two of Mr Hudson’s emails complied with the statutory formalities for the disposition of an interest in land, so that the detrimental reliance issue did not arise. As Lewison LJ (giving the lead judgment with which Andrews and Nugee LJJ agreed) recognised, the question of whether the emails complied with statutory formalities was","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"181 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46946852","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175549
C. Sayer, Ceri Jones, S. Mills, R. Griffith
ABSTRACT Recent years have seen calls for the order of the statutory test of decision-making capacity to be reversed and extended from its existing sequencing in the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice. The current ‘two-stage test’, involves a ‘diagnostic test’ (requiring the establishment of impaired or disturbed functioning of the mind or brain) and a ‘functional assessment’ (examining whether that impairment or disturbance renders the person unable to make a specific decision). Despite initial judicial concern that the order in the Code is incompatible with section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act, there has been surprisingly limited academic discussion. The recent remarks of Supreme Court Justice Lord Stephens in A Local Authority v JB confirming a reverse order have, seemingly, settled the matter, and the forthcoming revised Code of Practice will likely confirm this change. This article examines the rationale underlying this change, highlighting that suggested legal and policy reasons are not as ‘sound’ as might be thought. The paper argues that changed sequencing is unlikely to resolve potential neglect of the test’s causative nexus and, furthermore, there are potentially illogical and negative practice consequences, concluding that the proposed reversal of the test is cause for considerable lament.
摘要近年来，有人呼吁将决策能力法定测试的顺序从《精神行为能力法》的现有顺序中颠倒过来并加以扩展。目前的“两阶段测试”包括“诊断测试”（要求确定精神或大脑功能受损或紊乱）和“功能评估”（检查这种受损或紊乱是否使人无法做出具体决定）。尽管最初的司法关注是，该法典中的命令与《精神行为能力法》第2条不符，但令人惊讶的是，学术讨论有限。最高法院法官Lord Stephens最近在A Local Authority v JB一案中确认了一项反向命令的言论似乎解决了这一问题，即将修订的《业务守则》可能会证实这一变化。这篇文章探讨了这一变化的基本原理，强调了所提出的法律和政策原因并不像人们想象的那样“合理”。该论文认为，改变顺序不太可能解决对测试因果关系的潜在忽视，此外，还有潜在的不合逻辑和负面的实践后果，得出的结论是，拟议的测试逆转令人相当遗憾。
{"title":"The capacity test; a lament for the ‘old order’","authors":"C. Sayer, Ceri Jones, S. Mills, R. Griffith","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175549","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent years have seen calls for the order of the statutory test of decision-making capacity to be reversed and extended from its existing sequencing in the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice. The current ‘two-stage test’, involves a ‘diagnostic test’ (requiring the establishment of impaired or disturbed functioning of the mind or brain) and a ‘functional assessment’ (examining whether that impairment or disturbance renders the person unable to make a specific decision). Despite initial judicial concern that the order in the Code is incompatible with section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act, there has been surprisingly limited academic discussion. The recent remarks of Supreme Court Justice Lord Stephens in A Local Authority v JB confirming a reverse order have, seemingly, settled the matter, and the forthcoming revised Code of Practice will likely confirm this change. This article examines the rationale underlying this change, highlighting that suggested legal and policy reasons are not as ‘sound’ as might be thought. The paper argues that changed sequencing is unlikely to resolve potential neglect of the test’s causative nexus and, furthermore, there are potentially illogical and negative practice consequences, concluding that the proposed reversal of the test is cause for considerable lament.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"27 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48390152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175552
Kate de Contreras
ABSTRACT The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27. This was an appeal against an award in proprietary estoppel of around £1.3 million. A proprietary estoppel claim requires detrimental reliance on a promise to grant the claimant an interest in land. This generates an ‘equity’, which enables the court to fashion a remedy to cure this unconscionable situation: for example, an order to transfer the promised interest to the claimant, or an order to pay a monetary equivalent of what the claimant expected. The doctrine has been relied upon in media-friendly cases where claimants had worked on their family farms for low or no pay for many years on the expectation of an inheritance and ended up being cut out of that inheritance. Lord Briggs, for the majority, favoured enforcing the promise as a starting point while allowing for variation where ‘real-life problems’ warranted it. He held that the claimant should have what he expected but, in a novel approach, gave the defendants an entitlement to choose between two forms of relief. Lord Leggatt, dissenting, held that the remedial aim was to do only what was necessary to prevent detriment to the claimant. On his view, compensating the claimant’s reliance loss would be sufficient for this, and, in that regard, he did not factor in lost opportunities. This was a narrow scope to adopt, and the majority judgment is more likely to provide redress for the loss of important life opportunities.
最高法院最近公布了其对Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27的判决。这是一起针对专利禁止翻供赔偿约130万英镑的上诉。一项专有禁止反悔请求要求有害地依赖于给予请求人土地权益的承诺。这就产生了一种“衡平法”，使法院能够制定一种补救措施来纠正这种不合理的情况:例如，命令将承诺的利息转让给索赔人，或命令支付与索赔人预期等值的金钱。这一原则在一些有利于媒体的案件中得到了应用，在这些案件中，索赔人多年来一直在自己的家庭农场以低薪或无薪工作，期望得到一份遗产，但最终却被剥夺了这份遗产。对于大多数人来说，布里格斯勋爵赞成将这一承诺作为一个起点，同时允许在“现实问题”需要的情况下进行变化。他认为，索赔人应该得到他所期望的，但以一种新颖的方式，给予被告在两种救济形式中选择的权利。Leggatt勋爵持不同意见，认为补救的目的是只做必要的事情来防止损害索赔人。他认为，补偿索赔人的信赖损失就足以做到这一点，在这方面，他没有考虑到失去的机会。这是一个狭窄的适用范围，多数人的判决更有可能为失去重要的生活机会提供补救。
{"title":"‘[T]here are no winners here, only losers’+","authors":"Kate de Contreras","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175552","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27. This was an appeal against an award in proprietary estoppel of around £1.3 million. A proprietary estoppel claim requires detrimental reliance on a promise to grant the claimant an interest in land. This generates an ‘equity’, which enables the court to fashion a remedy to cure this unconscionable situation: for example, an order to transfer the promised interest to the claimant, or an order to pay a monetary equivalent of what the claimant expected. The doctrine has been relied upon in media-friendly cases where claimants had worked on their family farms for low or no pay for many years on the expectation of an inheritance and ended up being cut out of that inheritance. Lord Briggs, for the majority, favoured enforcing the promise as a starting point while allowing for variation where ‘real-life problems’ warranted it. He held that the claimant should have what he expected but, in a novel approach, gave the defendants an entitlement to choose between two forms of relief. Lord Leggatt, dissenting, held that the remedial aim was to do only what was necessary to prevent detriment to the claimant. On his view, compensating the claimant’s reliance loss would be sufficient for this, and, in that regard, he did not factor in lost opportunities. This was a narrow scope to adopt, and the majority judgment is more likely to provide redress for the loss of important life opportunities.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"92 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45771519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175554
Jed Meers, Caroline Selman
The largest creditor to those accessing food banks in the UK is not a private company or a bank, but the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) (Trussell Trust 2022). Of the 4.1 million households in receipt of Universal Credit – the flagship working-age benefit in the UK – 1.8 million have money deducted by the DWP to service a debt (CPAG, 2022). Debt is built into the design of the social security system. Claimants owe money to the DWP for a range of reasons: they have had an ‘advance payment’ to help them through their wait for the first Universal Credit award, have been overpaid benefits (as a result of a DWP error or otherwise), been awarded a hardship loan, or they owe money to a ‘third party’ – such as a utility company or housing provider – who claims it back via their benefits (so-called, ‘Third Party Deductions’ (TPDs)). In R. (on the application of Timson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 2392 (Admin) the court examined whether the operation of the TPD scheme in respect of so-called ‘legacy benefits’ was lawful. Characterised elsewhere in this journal by Griffiths and Cain (2022) as the DWP’s ‘free debt collection service’, under a wideranging scheme, the DWP can deduct up to 25% of a Universal Credit or legacy benefit award to repay arrears to utility providers (or other creditors, such as landlords). In finding that the guidance issued by the DWP to decision-makers was unlawful, Timson offers an insight both into the reality of the TPD process and its importance for thousands of households on legacy benefits and – by extension, given the similarity of the scheme – Universal Credit. This note outlines the decision in the case before turning to three broader points: the insight the case offers into the practical operation of the TPD scheme, its welcome interrogation of guidance in light of common law principles, and the court’s acknowledgement that redress after a decision is not always sufficient where an adverse outcome can cause real hardship. The claimant in Timson was unable to work as a result of significant disabling physical and mental health problems and was in receipt of means-tested benefits, including income-related employment and support allowance – a ‘legacy benefit’ which is being gradually replaced by Universal Credit. In common with thousands of others in receipt of means-tested support, TPDs had been made from her benefits to pay utility companies in respect of her water and fuel usage. She argued that the operation of the scheme was unlawful in two respects. First, under common law grounds, the written guidance
{"title":"Debt-by-design in social security: unlawful administration of ‘Third party deductions’","authors":"Jed Meers, Caroline Selman","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175554","url":null,"abstract":"The largest creditor to those accessing food banks in the UK is not a private company or a bank, but the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) (Trussell Trust 2022). Of the 4.1 million households in receipt of Universal Credit – the flagship working-age benefit in the UK – 1.8 million have money deducted by the DWP to service a debt (CPAG, 2022). Debt is built into the design of the social security system. Claimants owe money to the DWP for a range of reasons: they have had an ‘advance payment’ to help them through their wait for the first Universal Credit award, have been overpaid benefits (as a result of a DWP error or otherwise), been awarded a hardship loan, or they owe money to a ‘third party’ – such as a utility company or housing provider – who claims it back via their benefits (so-called, ‘Third Party Deductions’ (TPDs)). In R. (on the application of Timson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 2392 (Admin) the court examined whether the operation of the TPD scheme in respect of so-called ‘legacy benefits’ was lawful. Characterised elsewhere in this journal by Griffiths and Cain (2022) as the DWP’s ‘free debt collection service’, under a wideranging scheme, the DWP can deduct up to 25% of a Universal Credit or legacy benefit award to repay arrears to utility providers (or other creditors, such as landlords). In finding that the guidance issued by the DWP to decision-makers was unlawful, Timson offers an insight both into the reality of the TPD process and its importance for thousands of households on legacy benefits and – by extension, given the similarity of the scheme – Universal Credit. This note outlines the decision in the case before turning to three broader points: the insight the case offers into the practical operation of the TPD scheme, its welcome interrogation of guidance in light of common law principles, and the court’s acknowledgement that redress after a decision is not always sufficient where an adverse outcome can cause real hardship. The claimant in Timson was unable to work as a result of significant disabling physical and mental health problems and was in receipt of means-tested benefits, including income-related employment and support allowance – a ‘legacy benefit’ which is being gradually replaced by Universal Credit. In common with thousands of others in receipt of means-tested support, TPDs had been made from her benefits to pay utility companies in respect of her water and fuel usage. She argued that the operation of the scheme was unlawful in two respects. First, under common law grounds, the written guidance","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"96 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46861980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175547
K. Holt, Callum M Thomson
ABSTRACT This study offers a personal reflection on 18 months at the Family Bar. It provides a unique perspective on a family justice system, which despite acute pressure has retained some of the most compassionate professionals who despite severe cuts to funding, and lack of resources, continue to work efficiently and effectively and with good humour, under stress. The authors are experienced practising lawyers who have published extensively in the area of family law relating to children and family justice. This experience, coupled with the methodological approach of autoethnography, provides a distinct perspective to which academics and practitioners may relate. The aim of this paper is to reflect upon the impact of recent changes in family justice on barristers working in both private and public law family cases.
{"title":"Autoethnography: a personal reflection on the work of the family bar in the North of England","authors":"K. Holt, Callum M Thomson","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175547","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study offers a personal reflection on 18 months at the Family Bar. It provides a unique perspective on a family justice system, which despite acute pressure has retained some of the most compassionate professionals who despite severe cuts to funding, and lack of resources, continue to work efficiently and effectively and with good humour, under stress. The authors are experienced practising lawyers who have published extensively in the area of family law relating to children and family justice. This experience, coupled with the methodological approach of autoethnography, provides a distinct perspective to which academics and practitioners may relate. The aim of this paper is to reflect upon the impact of recent changes in family justice on barristers working in both private and public law family cases.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"62 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48993815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175551
M. Keating
{"title":"Social citizenship in an age of welfare regionalism. The state of the social unions","authors":"M. Keating","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175551","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"81 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44232571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175548
F. McCormack, Richard Machin, Victoria Riley, K. Spyropoulos, K. Dunn, C. Gidlow
ABSTRACT We present a case study of specialist welfare advice and advocacy for people experiencing multiple disadvantage (i.e. a combination of homelessness, contact with the criminal justice system, substance misuse, mental ill health). Drawing primarily on qualitative interviews with staff and stakeholders, we demonstrate the need for, and success of, specialist benefits advice for this customer group. Substantial financial gains were awarded, providing a greater level of security and stability, which increased customers’ housing options. We highlight a need for greater recognition across organisations that work with customers experiencing multiple disadvantage, that welfare benefits are a legal entitlement. Implications for policy and practice are discussed, including the importance of: developing confidence and a ‘law informed’ mindset in frontline staff; advisors building relationships with staff to achieve this; preparatory work with partner organisations to develop a shared understanding of what is involved and expectations. Ultimately, a culture of legal literacy must be cultivated at the individual (frontline staff) and organisational (partner host) levels. Stakeholders had concerns about the future of such initiatives in the context of further funding cuts; there is a risk that legal literacy development programmes become marginalised at a time when they are most needed.
{"title":"Building legal literacy in organisations that support people experiencing multiple disadvantage","authors":"F. McCormack, Richard Machin, Victoria Riley, K. Spyropoulos, K. Dunn, C. Gidlow","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175548","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We present a case study of specialist welfare advice and advocacy for people experiencing multiple disadvantage (i.e. a combination of homelessness, contact with the criminal justice system, substance misuse, mental ill health). Drawing primarily on qualitative interviews with staff and stakeholders, we demonstrate the need for, and success of, specialist benefits advice for this customer group. Substantial financial gains were awarded, providing a greater level of security and stability, which increased customers’ housing options. We highlight a need for greater recognition across organisations that work with customers experiencing multiple disadvantage, that welfare benefits are a legal entitlement. Implications for policy and practice are discussed, including the importance of: developing confidence and a ‘law informed’ mindset in frontline staff; advisors building relationships with staff to achieve this; preparatory work with partner organisations to develop a shared understanding of what is involved and expectations. Ultimately, a culture of legal literacy must be cultivated at the individual (frontline staff) and organisational (partner host) levels. Stakeholders had concerns about the future of such initiatives in the context of further funding cuts; there is a risk that legal literacy development programmes become marginalised at a time when they are most needed.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"11 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45414892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175550
Manisha Mathews
ABSTRACT This paper critiques the judgment delivered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Price v Powys County Council on 31 March 2021. The judgment determined that it does not amount to sex discrimination if a mother can receive enhanced pay on adoption leave, whilst a father can only receive statutory pay on shared parental leave. The paper will reflect upon the significance of this judgment in exposing some of the reasons that have contributed towards the low uptake of shared parental leave by fathers in the United Kingdom. Focus will be placed on how the low levels of replacement pay to financially support the position of fathers in childcare has influenced the low take-up rates. Similarly, the need for an identically situated comparator under the formal equality approach adopted by the Equality Act 2010 and the court system to substantiate a discrimination claim has also contributed towards the failure to recognise the lower levels of replacement pay given to fathers as sex discrimination. This paper will conclude that a substantive equality approach would have better recognised that fathers belong to a marginalised sub-group within men who experience sex discrimination in the form of lesser financial support to undertake childcare due to the gender stereotype that fathers should be the financial breadwinner.
{"title":"Working fathers experience sex discrimination?","authors":"Manisha Mathews","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175550","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper critiques the judgment delivered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Price v Powys County Council on 31 March 2021. The judgment determined that it does not amount to sex discrimination if a mother can receive enhanced pay on adoption leave, whilst a father can only receive statutory pay on shared parental leave. The paper will reflect upon the significance of this judgment in exposing some of the reasons that have contributed towards the low uptake of shared parental leave by fathers in the United Kingdom. Focus will be placed on how the low levels of replacement pay to financially support the position of fathers in childcare has influenced the low take-up rates. Similarly, the need for an identically situated comparator under the formal equality approach adopted by the Equality Act 2010 and the court system to substantiate a discrimination claim has also contributed towards the failure to recognise the lower levels of replacement pay given to fathers as sex discrimination. This paper will conclude that a substantive equality approach would have better recognised that fathers belong to a marginalised sub-group within men who experience sex discrimination in the form of lesser financial support to undertake childcare due to the gender stereotype that fathers should be the financial breadwinner.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"84 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42411008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175546
Tatiana Grieshofer
ABSTRACT The article focusses on communication and discursive practices in private family proceedings with the aim of exploring procedural barriers obstructing court users from sharing their stories and having their voice heard. Drawing on survey and interview data in combination with the linguistically driven empirical method – ethnography of communication, the discussion illustrates the discrepancy between communicative aims of court users and communicative aims of individual procedural stages. The article expands on how information and narratives are currently elicited from court users and proposes how procedural changes could accommodate more effective elicitation strategies and enhance procedural justice tenets.
{"title":"Reimagining communication and elicitation strategies in private family proceedings","authors":"Tatiana Grieshofer","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175546","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article focusses on communication and discursive practices in private family proceedings with the aim of exploring procedural barriers obstructing court users from sharing their stories and having their voice heard. Drawing on survey and interview data in combination with the linguistically driven empirical method – ethnography of communication, the discussion illustrates the discrepancy between communicative aims of court users and communicative aims of individual procedural stages. The article expands on how information and narratives are currently elicited from court users and proposes how procedural changes could accommodate more effective elicitation strategies and enhance procedural justice tenets.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"41 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41417564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175543
C. Reeson
{"title":"‘Reasonable living costs’, affordability of accommodation, and intentional homelessness: revisited","authors":"C. Reeson","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175543","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"88 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59920776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：