The Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has reiterated the Government’s stance on levying VAT on private school fees, insisting that closures in the sector are not a new development.

Appearing on Camilla Tominey Today on GB News, Ms Phillipson acknowledged that parents now face a choice in terms of fee-paying education, but stated she has no intention of reversing the policy.

“I don’t want disruption to children’s education if that were to result,” Ms Phillipson said. “But private schools, as businesses, will face choices as to how they manage their money. Parents also have choices as to how they spend theirs. If they choose not to opt for a particular school, and demand falls, that is how the market operates.”

When pressed on whether she was comfortable seeing further private school closures under her watch, Ms Phillipson noted that a falling birth rate has already led to “significant numbers of spare places” both in the state and private sectors. Highlighting that many private schools have shut down over the years, she stressed it is “not a new phenomenon” and that the broader trend has long predated the VAT policy.

Defending the policy

The Government’s decision to impose VAT on private education has sparked debate and concern among some parents and school administrators, who fear rising fees could drive more establishments to close. However, Ms Phillipson appeared resolute in her approach:

“Private schools, as I say, have closed in significant numbers for many, many years—this is not a new phenomenon. The policy stands, and I see no reason to move away from it.”

Welcoming Trump’s stance on Ukraine

Shifting focus from education, Ms Phillipson also used her appearance on GB News to address international affairs, specifically the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In a move that may surprise some observers, she expressed support for recent calls by former US President Donald Trump to negotiate a peaceful resolution:

“We believe the British government should step up and play a bigger role,” Ms Phillipson told presenter Camilla Tominey. “That’s why we do welcome the approach of President Trump in bringing parties to the negotiating table and in seeking to secure an enduring and lasting settlement for Ukraine.”

Ms Phillipson linked the conflict to rising costs and economic instability at home, underlining the Government’s commitment to increasing defence spending. She noted that billions of pounds are being pledged annually to support the Ukrainian effort, describing the conflict as one with “big consequences here in terms of energy bills [and] the instability that is being caused.”

Acknowledging that the Defence budget had already risen under the Chancellor’s recent package, Ms Phillipson suggested there is scope to accelerate existing timelines for further spending:

“It’s been talked about getting [Defence spending] to 2.5% of GDP by 2028, not 2030,” she said. “Alongside that, we are committed to reaching 2.5% and we’ll be setting out a pathway towards it.”

While the VAT on private school fees remains contentious, Ms Phillipson appears unconvinced by arguments that it will lead to an unprecedented wave of closures. Pointing instead to broader demographic shifts, she reiterated the Government’s stance that private schools must adapt to market forces—a position that is likely to keep debate lively in the coming months.

Meanwhile, her supportive remarks regarding Trump’s diplomatic suggestions signal a willingness to endorse a wide range of interventions in the Ukraine crisis, placing further scrutiny on how the UK can expedite the conflict’s resolution. As both education and foreign policy challenges continue to evolve, Ms Phillipson’s firm positions on these issues will undoubtedly remain in the spotlight.

Read more:
‘If they close, they close’: Education Secretary brushes off private schools’ fate while praising Trump’s war plan

Nick Clegg, Britain’s former deputy prime minister, has announced his departure from Meta after six years at the social media giant.

Clegg, who joined in 2018 and rose to become the company’s president of global affairs, confirmed his exit in a Facebook post, describing his tenure as an “adventure of a lifetime”.

He joined the then-Facebook at a time of intense scrutiny, helping to steer the tech behemoth through the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Clegg went on to spearhead the creation of the independent Oversight Board, an initiative aimed at boosting transparency in content moderation and governance.

Joel Kaplan, Clegg’s deputy and Meta’s former vice-president of global public policy, will succeed him. Kaplan previously served under President George W Bush as deputy chief of staff for policy and is seen as one of the most prominent conservative voices within Meta’s upper ranks. He rose through the company amid criticism from Republicans who claimed Facebook had a liberal bias, prompting moves such as partnering with the fact-checking division of the conservative Daily Caller news site.

Clegg’s departure comes just weeks before Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration on 20 January. Meta and other social media platforms have navigated a complex relationship with the former president, from banning his accounts to reinstating them and donating to his inauguration fund in 2017. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg praised Clegg’s impact in “advancing Meta’s voice and values around the world” and expressed confidence in Kaplan’s capacity to guide policy through what are likely to be turbulent political waters.

Read more:
Nick Clegg leaves Meta as Joel Kaplan takes helm of global affairs

Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s planned inheritance tax overhaul on family businesses and agricultural land risks backfiring by leaving the Exchequer £1bn worse off than if no changes were made, according to new economic analysis.

A report by CBI Economics suggests that a forecasted fall in investment—resulting from tighter relief on inherited business assets—is likely to overshadow any additional inheritance tax revenue raised. The study warns that Britain could lose £2.6bn in revenue from other taxes such as corporation tax, income tax, and national insurance over the next five years, significantly overshadowing the estimated £1.38bn gain from the inheritance tax changes.

The findings indicate that the Treasury has “underestimated the impact” of reforms to business property relief (BPR). Analysts anticipate that more than half of family businesses will cut investment in the wake of the policy shift, with further economic damage predicted to include the loss of 125,678 jobs.

Collectively, these measures are expected to drive down economic activity, eroding the tax base far more than originally projected. Instead of improving the public finances, the analysis implies the changes could cost the government £1.26bn more than maintaining the status quo.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, is set to spotlight these concerns in a speech at the Business Property Relief Summit in London on Monday. She will argue that Labour’s approach leaves “no one safe” from tax hikes, accusing the government of stifling investment and sabotaging growth.

Speaking to attendees at the London Palladium, Ms Badenoch is expected to say: “Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves spent years telling businesses they had nothing to fear. Within weeks of taking office, they unleashed the worst raid on family businesses in living memory. They promised growth, but instead have driven it into reverse.”

She will add: “The warning from Family Business UK, that Labour’s changes to BPR could cost 125,000 jobs, is chilling—equivalent to the entire population of Blackburn.”

Under the proposed changes, inherited business assets above £1m will be subject to a 20% levy. Agricultural property relief (APR) will also be tightened, meaning farmers face new tax burdens on inherited farmland.

Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party, said: “Rachel Reeves is no economist. Her Budget measures and her total lack of understanding of the private sector are dragging the country into recession.”

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, added: “Farmers have already endured botched trade deals and endless red tape. Now this tax hike from the Chancellor threatens the survival of family farms and countless jobs.”

The measures come amid broader fears that the Chancellor’s record £40bn Budget tax raid has already dented Britain’s economic prospects. October’s GDP figures showed an unexpected contraction for the second consecutive month, and rising unemployment data—due to be published on Tuesday—may confirm the downward trend.

James Reed, chief executive of the recruitment giant Reed, has warned that falling job vacancies could signal an impending recession. He told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme that vacancies advertised on his platform were down by 26% year-on-year, describing the trend as a portent of tough times ahead.

Later this week, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer will face scrutiny from senior MPs at the Liaison Committee, where questions over the inheritance tax changes are likely to loom large.

Meanwhile, farmers are expected to join Ms Badenoch at Monday’s summit to voice their opposition. Industry groups are accusing the government of underplaying the impact of its reforms. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers estimates that 2,500 farmers will be affected annually—five times the Treasury’s official projection—while the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Tom Bradshaw has raised concerns over the extreme pressure the policy places on older landowners.

On Monday, 160,000 family-owned businesses—represented by trade bodies including the NFU, the British Independent Retailers Association, and Hospitality UK—will write to Ms Reeves. They will demand a formal consultation and emphasise that BPR and APR were never loopholes but legitimate incentives designed to encourage investment.

CBI Economics surveyed family-owned firms and concluded that 85% plan to scale back investment due to the changes, while 54% expect to cut staff. By 2030, the group forecasts a £9.4bn fall in gross value added (GVA), a key measure of economic output.

Neil Davy, chief executive of Family Business UK, said: “Owners are already pulling back on planned investment and putting recruitment on hold. We do not believe these outcomes were what the government intended. We urge the Chancellor to consult formally and find a solution that protects long-term investment, jobs, and growth.”

The mounting backlash against the tax shake-up has sparked speculation that the government may soften its stance. Arun Advani of the CenTax think tank, a previous supporter of the proposals, has suggested raising thresholds to spare family farms.

A Treasury spokesman defended the policy: “Our commitment to business is resolute. With a 25% corporation tax cap and full permanent expensing, we aim to unlock growth for Britain. But with a £22bn inherited fiscal hole and public services under strain, difficult choices had to be made. We have published our impact modelling and will provide further analysis alongside draft legislation expected in 2025.”

Read more:
Reeves’s business inheritance tax shake-up ‘will cost exchequer £1bn more than it raises’ warn economists

Hundreds of farmers gathered in Westminster today, chanting “no farmers, no food” outside Downing Street, as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced tough questioning in the Commons over proposed changes to inheritance tax.

Tractors blocked parts of Whitehall during a demonstration organised by Save British Farming and Kent Fairness for Farmers, reflecting the industry’s growing anger over Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s levy proposals.

Under the plans, announced in last month’s Budget, inheritance tax will rise to 20 per cent on agricultural assets worth more than £1 million. Although the government insists the majority of farms will remain unaffected, farmers’ groups have argued that the threshold is far too low for many family-run holdings. Approximately 500 farmers travelled to Westminster today to protest, following a rally of around 13,000 people in the capital last month.

As the protest took place, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey pressed Sir Keir Starmer on whether he would “change course and recognise the vital role that family farms play.” In response, the Prime Minister stated that the “vast majority” of farms would be unaffected, citing the £3 million threshold for an “ordinary family” case.

However, many farmers remain unconvinced. Matt Cullen, a beef farmer and organiser with Kent Fairness for Farmers, claimed: “We need to show this government that we will not be pushed over and have our farms destroyed. This is war and we will win and force the government into a U-turn.”

Among the demonstrators was 26-year-old Claire Fifield, whose step-family runs a tenanted farm in Amersham, Buckinghamshire. Ms Fifield said the £1 million threshold was unrealistically low given the costs associated with farming: “I don’t think they’ve spoken to a single farmer, especially not a tenant farmer. They looked at Jeremy Clarkson and decided to take his money, but this punishes people who have been working these lands for generations.”

The emotional toll of the dispute was highlighted during a session of the Commons Environment Committee, where Tom Bradshaw, President of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), was moved to tears while describing the pressure some farmers face. Middle-aged farmers are reportedly worried their parents will not live the seven years required to avoid tax liabilities, putting businesses that have been nurtured for decades at risk. Bradshaw warned of severe human consequences, including the possibility of farmers taking their own lives due to financial despair.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Conservative MP Jerome Mayhew reminded Sir Keir Starmer of his pre-election remarks to the NFU, where he acknowledged that losing a farm “is not like losing any other business.” Mayhew accused the current administration of being duplicitous. Sir Keir countered by highlighting the £5 billion of support pledged to agriculture over the next two years, including £350 million allocated in the last week, and reiterated that “the vast majority of farmers will be unaffected” by the changes.

As tensions remain high, the government stands by its reforms, while many farmers fear the new inheritance tax threshold will jeopardise family farms that have supported communities and produced British food for generations.

Read more:
Farmers descend on Westminster amid inheritance tax row as Starmer faces MPs’ questions

The 16th century mansion, referred to as the ‘Garden of Eden’ is up for sale after Barbara Pollard accused her husband Ian of being a ‘womanising alcoholic’. The couple were given their ‘Naked Gardeners’ nickname after frequently appearing on TV wearing little more than their gardening gloves.

All divorces are difficult and they are made harder when a business is involved because of its impact on the family, the company – and the employees.

In this particular case, the wider community is also affected by the couple’s decision to split up. Since opening in 1998, the nationally renowned garden has attracted nearly half a million visitors and crowds of naked tourists who flocked to the former nunnery and grounds could now lose a favoured amenity once it is sold.

Elected Mayor of Malmesbury Sue Poole – who says the gardens have put the town on the map – is so concerned that Malmesbury will lose a vital tourist attraction that she has appealed for any prospective buyers to keep them open.

Ian Pollard says he cannot afford to buy his wife’s share of the property so their home – and business – must be sold. The Pollards’ situation reinforces the importance of obtaining good, professional legal advice – both prior to marriage and during a marriage – when a couple are in business together so that a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement can be drawn up.

In the event of a divorce, a company could be regarded as a matrimonial asset to be sold or shared. And if you are already married, it really is worth considering a post-nuptial agreement to protect any new business ventures.

Although pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements are not legally binding, they are taken into account by the court and can make the whole divorce process run more smoothly. However, they will not prevent a business from coming under close scrutiny with key issues such as how much it is worth – and what income it provides both now and potentially in the future – when assets are divided.

Judges will often examine the liquidity within a business and how this might be paid out to the wider family to meet costs such as accommodation or school fees. It is therefore vital that you are not seen to be hiding any assets as this will not only be frowned upon by the courts – but could also result in a prison sentence.

While discussing assets, avoid mixing business and private assets unless absolutely necessary. When clients tell us they have secure borrowing for the business against the family home, we are always concerned about the potential impact on the domestic and commercial factors of a divorce settlement.

Ultimately, if as a business owner you find yourself facing divorce, I would advise you to think carefully about what desired outcome you are seeking. It is essential to recognise and understand how the court process works and the costs that may be involved. Being prepared and setting an agenda for discussions with your ex can ensure a better outcome for your company and everyone involved.

If your business is the economic bedrock of a local community then, like the Pollards, you may well find that more people than your immediate family and staff feel the thorny effects of your divorce.

Read more:
Protecting your business against divorce: cautionary tale from the ‘Garden of Eden’

The truth is that few of us can resist a bargain when conveniently and strategically placed, which is why the idea of buying a divorce at the supermarket – pioneered by the Co-op’s Legal Services – grabbed the public imagination when it was first launched.

The troubled organisation set up a family law practice when it was decreed that businesses, including banks and supermarkets, could be licensed to offer legal services.

The legal shake-up that heralded the Co-op’s family law service – and ironically dubbed the Tesco Law – adopted an IT conveyor belt approach with the size and sheer volume of cases keeping prices down.

As reduced profits and difficult trading conditions can put a strain on personal relationships, a cheap divorce may seem tempting. However, business owners need to think very carefully before cutting corners on such a life changing decision.

Can this really be the answer for couples who find that their marriage has fallen apart? Complex financial issues, disagreements about where children will live and pension arrangements will all require a more tailored and measured solution.

Successful firms wouldn’t dream of scrimping when it comes to obtaining sound financial advice because such expertise is necessary to ensure the business has a sustainable future.

Couples looking to separate need a bespoke service and one that means they can talk to an expert who will listen and offer solutions that work for their personal situation, particularly if they have a business. A solicitor who is a member of Resolution, the organisation for family lawyers committed to non-confrontational approaches to divorce, is very much alive to the needs of an individual client – not taking a ‘one size fits all approach’.

With the demise of legal aid for most family law matters, we know how important it is for people to keep down the cost of divorce – and an ‘off the shelf’ option may seem tempting. However, any good family lawyer will work with the client to manage costs and direct him or her to the most appropriate divorce option – whether mediation, collaboration, arbitration or simply good old-fashioned negotiation.

Read more:
Why picking up a divorce with the shopping just doesn’t add up

That’s why I would always recommend that clients who own a business talk to their accountants at the outset of a marriage breakdown.

Solicitors and accountants will often work together when a couple is going through a divorce, particularly if one party has their own business, or if the couple are ‘co-preneurs’ and jointly own a company.

Although as a business owner you are probably financially savvy, you are unlikely to be comfortable dealing in the financial matters surrounding divorce – particularly when it comes to agreeing the split of assets with your former spouse.

By employing an accountant, business owners receive the professional help they need to identify earnings and ascertain the value of any shares, investments, options and pensions.

In particular, an accountant will know how to evaluate the worth of the business – whether that’s a sole trader, a partnership or a limited company.

Discussing business and taxation affairs with an accountant as soon as it has been agreed to separate is a helpful first step towards the financial disclosure element of any divorce.

Depending on your personal situation, it may be advisable to see the accountant first – indeed he or she may be able to recommend an experienced family lawyer. However, if a situation is acrimonious, then a divorce solicitor should still be the first port of call.

If your ex does not work, then his or her lawyer will request appropriate disclosure of your income and assets. A key tip, however, is not to make rash promises about a house and maintenance before you speak to both your lawyer and accountant.

Sometimes a forensic accountant will need to be called in to examine information provided to lawyers if it is viewed as incomplete or suspicious. For instance, if one party claims to be poverty stricken, but is seen buying new cars and going on expensive holidays.

Unfortunately, some people try to hide their assets or try to reduce the profitability of their business so that they can reduce their income levels and payments to their ex. As I have written previously, no court will look favourably on this behaviour – and if you hide assets, you will be found out.

If you have a business to protect through a divorce then a chat with your accountant makes good financial sense.

Read more:
Getting divorced? Make sure you speak to your accountant!

His story is a cautionary tale for men and women who see their businesses rocket to success after their marriages breakdown.

Dale Vince was claiming state benefits during his marriage to Kathleen Wyatt and even spent time as a new age traveller following his divorce.

But within just three years of their divorce, Mr Vince had founded Ecotricity, a highly successful supplier of wind energy and, by 2012, the company had net assets of £56m with 75,000 customers generating turnover of £54m and profits of £500,000.

In 2010, Ms Wyatt launched a ‘financial remedy’ claim against Mr Vince – 18 years after their divorce was finalised – seeking a share of her ex-husband’s now substantial assets.

So how did Mr Vince end up in this position? This case is undoubtedly a stark warning to all business owners to make sure that any financial settlements made at the time of their divorce are sanctioned by the court.

For Mr Vince, there is no record of whether any financial orders were made because all the papers, apart from the divorce decree itself, were destroyed and the files of the solicitors used were non-existent.

Fortunately for Mr Vince the High Court rejected the order and Lord Justice Jackson ruled that he should not be expected to pay his ex-wife part of his fortune just because he had become a successful businessman.  This was despite Mr Vince being ordered initially to pay his ex-wife £125,000 to fund her legal costs to bring her claim against him.

His case highlights what can go wrong when formal agreements, known as a consent order and a clean break order, are not entered into.

In simple terms, the consent order sets out any financial agreement in the divorce process, but it is the clean break order which is particularly critical for any business owner.  This latter order formally dismisses the right for either party to ask for money or a share of assets in the future.

That’s why it is important for business owners to seek legal advice when getting divorced and is an excellent reason to avoid DIY divorce websites.

Another way to protect assets is for both parties to sign a pre-nuptial agreement as a business could be regarded as a matrimonial asset to be sold or shared in a divorce.

If you are already married, it would be worth considering a post-nuptial agreement to protect any new business ventures.

One thing to avoid if considering divorce is to hide or dispose of assets. This will be frowned upon by the court and could even land you in jail.

Read more:
Why a clean break order is vital for business owners undergoing divorce

Duncan Bannatyne reveals the warts and all heartbreak of his marriage breakup and divorce to second wife Joanne McCue in his autobiography Riding the Storm. His personal revelations demonstrate that no amount of money or career success can lessen the pain of divorce.

Despite his millions, the business angel says that the end of his marriage crushed him physically and emotionally and, as the divorce process continued, he turned to drink and became increasingly depressed.

Duncan, well known for his no nonsense style, reveals that he had to flee the television studio during the recording of Dragon’s Den to “go and cry somewhere” after discovering his wife was divorcing him.

When Joanne broke the news via a text message that she wanted their marriage to be terminated while he was filming the ninth series of the popular BBC 2 business programme, Duncan writes that “I couldn’t believe that after 18 years together she didn’t tell me in person”.

He describes waiting on Darlington railway station for a train to London with “tears streaming down my face” and feeling that the only way to “make the pain stop” would be to jump in front of a fast train.

Duncan’s despair turned to anger as he labelled his ex-wife a “gold digger” and revealed that the couple had not signed a pre-nuptial agreement. The Dragon even vented his feelings on Twitter – on one occasion Tweeting “#singleBecause I didn’t sign a prenup#divorcedformoney”

We live in a society where it is still perceived that ‘real men’ – particularly successful and powerful men – keep their emotions under wraps. The entrepreneur’s admission of his fragile state of mind serves as a lesson that even the strongest people can plunge the depths of despair when their marriage falls apart.

Throughout my decades as a family lawyer I have witnessed clients from all walks of life – including many running successful businesses – who have struggled to cope with the emotional fall out of separation and divorce. On numerous occasions I have driven to meet distraught clients in pubs and tearooms out of office hours – because they feel alone, depressed and vulnerable.

During the day these business leaders may be holding it together, but when staff leave and the phones stop, these successful business people may have no one to talk to and they can feel isolated.

Apparently Duncan’s best man advised him to draw up a pre-nup and that raises the question why the TV celebrity – who had built and grown a substantial business empire and whose divorce left him ‘financially crippled’ – ruled it out?

Lawyers and other professional advisers will often recommend that business owners sign such an agreement, so what are the lessons from the Dragon’s Den star to lessen the emotional and financial pain of divorce?

1. If you are the one seeking a divorce, then make time to have a face to face conversation with your partner. It may be tempting to text messages or email to break the bad news, but is that fair? You are about to deliver devastating news to your partner – someone you presumably loved at some point in your relationship – so consider how that will affect them emotionally and psychologically.

2. If you are the hurt party then, like Duncan Bannatyne, you may feel depressed, suicidal and perhaps very alone. Duncan was fortunate to be supported by good friends including his Dragon’s Den co-star Peter Jones. However, men in particular can find it hard to talk about their feelings to their mates. A good family lawyer should be able to refer you to a counsellor or talk to your GP about what help is available.

3. In business you wouldn’t appoint someone without personal recommendation or a good reference – the same applies to choosing a divorce lawyer. Ask around among friends, colleagues and professional advisers to find someone you rate and like. Not only will a respected, experienced divorce lawyer provide sound, practical advice he or she will also offer you appropriate support through what may be many challenging and emotionally draining weeks and months

4. It is extremely unhelpful when friends and family decide to meddle or badmouth your ex so I would advise asking them to stay on the side-lines and instead offer you emotional and physical support when you need it. Social media platforms have provided new, very public platforms for some people to promote extreme and inappropriate views. For example, Duncan says that he discovered one of his “Twitter trolls” who was writing anonymous “bullying” tweets, was related to his ex-wife.

5. The entrepreneur says he became increasingly angry about the financial side of his divorce; worrying about how he would continue to support his children and his charities. While such anger is understandable, I recommend a non-confrontational approach, wherever possible. Negotiation is the best way to resolve critical, yet often challenging financial settlements – including if a business is involved. If you have signed a pre-nup this agreement gives both parties clarity about their respective financial positions post-divorce. In the absence of a pre-nup, negotiation can avoid the trauma and added cost of court if you and your ex, together with your lawyers, work collaboratively to discuss the issues and different solutions.

The entrepreneur’s poignant revelations reinforce how even the most successful, hard-nosed business leaders allow their hearts to rule their heads when it comes to affairs of the heart. Once recovered from this ordeal – and if considering marriage again – he will undoubtedly be saying ‘I do’ to taking up a pre-nup – and taking the next Mrs Bannatyne down the aisle.

Read more:
Painful Lessons from a Dragon’s Divorce Trauma

As widely reported, Michael Prest, the founder of an oil company was ordered by the Supreme Court to hand ownership of luxury properties to his wife as part of a £17.5 divorce settlement. A web of offshore holding companies and subsidiaries had been set up to disguise ownership of the assets.

The court’s decision gave the red card to disclosure “cheats” – signalling the end of deliberately hiding business assets in a divorce settlement.
So what are the ramifications of this judgement for owners of SME businesses whose marriages fall apart?

Financial disclosures in a divorce settlement may send a shiver down the spine of business owners; however they are designed to ensure that both parties in a divorce receive fair settlements. Here are my critical dos and don’ts on disclosing your financial and business assets.

• Do be open and transparent. It is a myth that this ruling gives carte blanche to aggrieved ex-spouses to grab business assets. No one, including the Courts wants to see businesses brought to their knees. That won’t change if your business is well run and accountable. However, if a lawyer spots anomalies, such as large amounts of money being taken out of a business or being used to cover expenses, then a judge could rule that there has been a deliberate attempt to conceal company assets. In such cases the judge may decide to be less sympathetic to the business owner and to look more closely at the business assets in a financial settlement.

• Don’t set up a new company as a means of protecting assets. If you set up a new business shortly before separating a judge will, understandably, be suspicious. No matter that there may be legitimate tax reasons for doing so, a wary judge or lawyer could see such an action as a deliberate attempt to hide property and other personal assets within a corporate structure.

• Do make a full and frank disclosure of your financial assets. You will be asked to complete what is known as a ‘Form E’ and provide evidence of your assets and finances in the UK and abroad including bank statements, business accounts, tax returns, mortgage statements, valuations of any assets, such as pensions, property together with evidence of any financial liabilities. Lawyers collate this documentation and exchange it with your ex’s lawyer as part of the divorce negotiations.

• If you refuse to submit documentation, or if vital paperwork appears to be missing, then a lawyer may believe that you have not made a ‘full and frank disclosure’ and can apply to the courts for a judge to deal with the financial matters. You could be fined or even imprisoned – almost certainly you will face additional costs, particularly if lawyers have to pay for specialist help to track down your missing finances.

• Don’t set up a secret bank account. However tempting it may be to syphon off assets into an undisclosed bank account, including an off-shore one, you will be found out. Divorce lawyers know every trick in the book and will ask questions if money seems to be missing. They may employ forensic accountants to track down your missing money and family courts have the power to question your accountant, financial advisor and bank manager about your finances.

• Do aim to be collaborative. Financial settlements are a critical, yet often challenging part of divorce and a collaborative approach, favoured by my own firm, can help to resolve matters in a less confrontational manner than going to court. In collaboration the couple and their lawyers will work closely as a team to help reach an amicable agreement.

• Remember an open and fair settlement will be a lasting solution. If, in the future, your ex discovers that everything had not been disclosed he or she can ask the court to look again at any settlement and overturn it if necessary. The result is emotional upheaval and costs.

No SME business owner going through a divorce should have reason to fear this landmark ruling as long as he or she plays fair and avoids the temptation to conceal business and personal assets.

Read more:
Don’t dodge disclosures – the dos and don’ts of hiding assets during a divorce

The idea of ‘moving on’ from an unhappy partnership implies that the couple will no longer live under the same roof, nor would they choose to do so.

Little wonder then that celebrity watchers were jolted when The Real Housewives of Atlanta star, Porsha Stewart revealed she was continuing to live with her husband of two years, despite the divorce proceedings he had initiated.

While this particular case was caused largely by the fact that one party was finding it hard to absorb a new reality, it is not unusual for ordinary separating couples to live under the same roof.

Financial pressures – exacerbated by the current economic climate – may lead people to believe that building separate lives whilst sticking it out in the family home is the best and only option. So with the best of intentions one partner moves into the spare room and the couple attempts to live separate lives until house prices rise and the economy improves.

What may appear a practical solution is rarely workable in my experience. In fact, this domestic arrangement can have a detrimental and lasting impact on children.

When both parents feel trapped, children will pick up on any hostility, anger or resentment. A collaborative, non-confrontational approach that puts children first in a divorce is lost in the inevitable enmity. Such an arrangement, which parents may see as pragmatic and ‘grown up’, may also give children false hope that mum and dad are staying together after all.

In the short term, living separate lives under the same roof may save money but the long term emotional cost may be high. If you do have to stay together for just a short time here are some tips to help everyone in the family cope.

• Set yourself a realistic timeframe for one partner moving out.  Consider temporary arrangements whether returning to parents or renting a flat
• If you are struggling to sell your home take advice from your estate agent. Should you drop the price for a quick sale – and what are the financial implications?
• Sort out your finances and take professional advice – what does each party need to live an independent life and to ensure that children are provided for?
• Agree arrangements for how you will live together under one roof – set some ground rules about sharing space, who minds the children and how you divide bills
• Aim to keep the peace and avoid arguments in front of the children
• If one partner is in a new relationship it can be particularly challenging for a couple to live together in the marital home. Be sensitive to the feelings of your partner and children and avoid bringing your new romance into their lives
• Take legal advice so that both parties know the options available for divorcing as amicably as possible.  Family lawyers will also be able to help with referrals to family therapists and counsellors if you need extra support in particularly challenging circumstances.

Read more:
If you live in a war zone who gets caught in the crossfire?

I’m still reeling from an article which sees top London divorce lawyers acting like their worst behaved clients who engage in mud-slinging, spare no punches divorce battles.

Centred on Spears’ three-yearly list of London’s top divorce lawyers, the bellicose boxers hurled insults with no holds barred – describing their peers as a “thug in lawyer’s clothing”, “a monster with a personality disorder” and “the go-to man for trench-fighting litigation”.

To add insult to injury the list comprises high profile names that have represented royalty and celebrities such as Sir Paul McCartney.

In my world being an “aggressive litigator”, “a terrier” or “a nutter” doesn’t get you anywhere.  I see clients who want an experienced professional who will guide them the most challenging of times; help them sort out the financial aspects of a divorce and issues relating to their children.  Most people I see appreciate Jones Myers’ sensitive and civilised approach – helping them to stay away from lengthy, and potentially costly, court proceedings.

Of course I understand that there are situations where litigation in court is the inevitable outcome. Possibly because of a genuine failure to agree or perhaps less than frank financial disclose by one or other of the parties. Sometimes it’s just a refusal to discuss and negotiate. At Jones Myers we are equally experienced in the court process and tactics; where we aredifferent is when we refuse to allow personalities to cloud judgment and to turn the event into an emotional and financially expensive bear garden.

The Spears’ list of London names supposedly represents the cream of divorce lawyers. More than 20 years ago the best family and divorce lawyers were in London, but that has changed and there is now a considerable ‘gang’ of us here in the North.  We can, and do, work on high profile divorces yet are just as accessible and affordable to middle England.  I could easily name 25 outstanding family and divorce lawyers among my colleagues across the North of England. You only have to look at Chambers, the law industry bible, to see the breadth of expertise and quality from the Scottish Borders to the Midlands.

I often tell clients “the more you fight, the more it will cost you”, and with London lawyers charging eye-watering hourly rates (£500 is not un-typical) the price of divorce could be very high indeed.

Read more:
Why Brawling London Divorce Lawyers Need to Stop Dishing the Dirt

For owner managers seeking the often illusive work/life balance, the boundaries between their personal and business lives become blurred – and a seasonal introspection may reinforce that more than a superficial lick of paint is needed to put right deep-rooted relationship issues and business challenges.

It’s a sad reality that at this time of year family laws specialists like me see a rise in enquiries from concerned couples wanting to start divorce proceedings – be it litigating via the courts or increasingly, as I have experienced, going down the mediation path – to avoid the stress and trauma of court confrontations.

This year the challenges for divorcing couples will be exacerbated with the imminent demise of legal aid on April 1. This, in my opinion, short sighted development, spearheaded by the Government in a bid to further reduce public spending, will preclude many couples from receiving free or subsidised access to affordable expert legal advice for family matters including financial issues, residency and contact with their children.

Ironically, those most affected by the demise of Legal Aid are the most vulnerable and least wealthy – and, dependent upon the type of business you are running – may include your own employees who are struggling with relationship breakdowns.

So what can employers, who take their duty of care towards their staff very seriously, do to help? When looking at this from a commercial perspective, we recall the myriad of studies which highlight that employees with emotional issues are invariably less productive. Fatigued and distracted, their concentration levels plummet and they find it hard to manage workloads and deadlines.

In light of the fact that 42% of UK marriages are expected to end in divorce – when reviewing your employee benefits and incentives in your spring clean checklist – you may want to consider investing in surgeries and enlisting the services of a qualified family lawyer who can talk through the options available to them.

Admittedly such surgeries, which can be conducted discreetly offsite to encourage staff to take advantage of the opportunity, do not feature in the traditional tick list of perks and benefits such as pension schemes, additional holidays, health insurance and gym memberships.

They could, however, make a world of difference to a distressed member of staff who does not know which way to turn – and who has no comprehension of how the frugal financial assets they may have jointly accrued over years or decades will be divided up. I frequently find that negotiations over a couple’s outgoings and finances can be more complex than the divorce itself.

If you are experiencing such relationship concerns as a business owner, imagine how scared your employees – who may also be in a similar position – are about coping with the traumas of separation, isolation, finances and childcare?

In the same way that an office spring clean heralds new beginnings, being equipped with the relevant information about the options available to your people can help them to accept that although it’s impossible to put the clock back, it is possible to move forward one small step at a time.

Ultimately – and irrespective of whether we are alluding to employers or employees – action as opposed to procrastination must be top of everyone’s agenda in an untenable situation.

In my experience, the worst scenario for beleaguered individuals whose relationships have broken down is to brush their concerns under the carpet in the hope that the dust will settle.

It invariably never does and delays can negatively impact on the collective health, well-being and profitability of business owners who have grafted long and hard for their companies, employees whose diminishing productivity and misery will rub off on their colleagues – and customers whose pipeline and fees keep the company in business and its staff in gainful employment.

Read more:
Should employee incentives include divorce surgeries?

Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, also forecast that this would lead to people taking the law into their own hands because they no longer have access to justice.

He told the BBC that the changes – designed to cut the legal aid bill by £350m a year by 2015 – could lead to higher court costs.

I agree wholeheartedly with Lord Neuberger’s concerns. The sad reality of these reforms is that hundreds of thousands of families will be left in a legal wilderness feeling stressed and traumatised because they won’t know which way to turn. – and who to turn to.

I fear that these cruel cuts which deprive the least wealthy and most vulnerable members of our society of free or subsidised advice or representation in key areas – will have disastrous consequences.

The repercussions include more children playing truant from school, a rise in instances of depression causing people to take time off work – and increasing the strain on the NHS budget. I also predict an increase in crime as children’s problems are left unresolved.

When I embarked upon my legal career, there was an ambition within government and the profession to enable everyone to have access to justice. The more vulnerable members of society were supported through legal aid; indeed it was a fundamental part of the legal structure.

Currently a substantial percentage of cases are resolved by the early and skilful intervention of legal expertise – usually a matrimonial lawyer – but cuts in legal aid will put this kind of expert advice out of the reach of many couples.

This change in legal aid provision is, in my view, false economy. I agree with Lord Neuberger that we will see a substantial and sustained increase in people representing themselves, putting a strain on the court system and the Judge’s time – both of which are under siege at the present.

Cases will be delayed as the layperson is likely to be poorly prepared as well as unused to the protocols of family courts.  Adjournments will cause frustration, which may well boil over and exacerbate an already tense and problematic family situation.

Badly prepared Petitions and individuals trying to ‘self help’ will painstakingly swing backwards and forwards to court with little progress being made. Judges will need to dig deeper into financial matters to avoid being unfair and cases will take longer where there are problems of disclosure. Both judges and the parties involved will become frustrated, increasingly intolerant and polarised in their views.

So why has the Government failed so abysmally to count the real financial, emotional and social cost of its legislation?

What are your views on the end of legal aid? Share them with us below or email us here.

Read more:
My take on Lord Neuberger’s warning of the brutal consequences of legal aid cuts

It’s commonly believed that in January more people file for divorce than at any other time of the year; a superhuman effort may be required from everyone if the atmosphere is to remain cordial.

For small business owners the effects are amplified. The pressures on time-poor owner managers, especially in the current economic climate, are undeniable. Their focus is usually on ensuring the future success of the business and, in many cases, the lead-up to the end of the calendar year is overshadowed by the end of the company’s financial year.

Christmas celebrations may be merely endured rather than enjoyed and family rather neglected in the run-up. The situation can be even more challenging if your family is a fractured one, traumatised by arguments over which child spends which day with which family unit.

It may be tempting to immerse yourself in your business, but all work and no play doesn’t just make Jack a dull boy – it can seriously affect your health and your family. Sticking your head in the sand will only exacerbate existing problems and it’s essential to plan ahead if you want to survive and even enjoy the season.

Think about this: you wouldn’t leave it until the last minute to order a vital new piece of equipment, or delay a meeting with a new business prospect, would you?

Ensure your family is treated on a par with your business. Make time to discuss contact arrangements with your ex and plan now for quality time with your children during the holidays so you can book any activities well in advance.

If your situation is somewhat frostier and you can’t reach amicable agreement for contact, remember that judges are singularly unimpressed with 11th-hour applications. We all know when Christmas is – especially your children – and this is one time to put them first.

Planning ahead now will also help you to relax during the holiday, and bringing a refreshed and refreshing approach to the business can only reap dividends in the New Year.

We do hope that this Christmas brings you happiness and relaxation – share your tips with us on getting through the stresses of the festive season.

Read more:
Don’t let Christmas creep up on you

The proposed changes may include providing a mathematical formula for couples to calculate how much each partner should receive and the exclusion of homes and assets – which could include business assets – from settlements if they were inherited or acquired before the marriage.

So how will this affect business owners? The first point is that, if you already reached a settlement regarding capital and assets on splitting with your spouse, the case cannot be reopened unless it can be proved that you misrepresented or didn’t disclose significant information.

Achieving a final clean break settlement with no maintenance award really is final, with no possibility of review – and that is also unlikely to change. Similarly, there will still be several options regarding the terms of the settlement, for example agreeing share or pension allocations in lieu of a maintenance award.

That said, regardless of whether the law is updated to ring-fence pre-acquired assets, no one should ever assume that this situation could not be open to challenge. It will depend on individual circumstances. However, there are steps that you can take now to help provide a certain level of protection and define each party’s rights.

If the business was established during your marriage then you could consider a shareholder agreement or form a discretionary trust. Careful thought should be given before employing a spouse or partner and similar care before transferring any shares into their name. If a business was established prior to the marriage, then a prenuptial agreement or pre-civil partnership agreement should fit the bill.

Recent developments in the law have given greater acceptance to these agreements and the position will continue to be strengthened by the Law Commission.

At the moment, family law judges in England and Wales have a great deal of discretion and that can be a double edged sword, potentially adding to the cost of a case because legal advisors can’t easily predict what judges may say regarding the division of assets – especially for business owners whose financial position is usually more complex.

In addition, judges in different parts of the country are not always consistent with each other about what constitutes a fair settlement.

The idea of a formula for working out financial settlements is already the norm in personal injury cases. There is also a parallel with child maintenance costs where settlement for each child is calculated on a percentage of earnings. However, the often-unique financial circumstances of a small business do not lend themselves easily to a formula so it would be wise to take further precautions, regardless of the outcomes of the review.

The law is unlikely to be updated for several years – the next step is a Law Commission report to ministers in 2013. Don’t sit on your hands in the meantime: you may believe that both your business and your marriage are built on strong foundations – in which case long may that continue. But doing nothing could leave you vulnerable at the point of a split if your crystal ball turns out to be cloudier than you thought.

Read more:
Can you ring-fence your business in your divorce settlement?

It is a myth that living with a partner for a significant period of time automatically confers on a couple the same rights as their married counterparts. Cohabiting couples are not ‘common law husband and wife’ – this concept ceased to exist in 1753.

Living together as a couple, or cohabitation, is a lifestyle choice for over four million couples in England and Wales. As the law presently stands, this means a significant and growing number of couples have fewer financial rights and responsibilities than those who marry or form a civil partnership.

A report from the Office of National Statistics indicates around half of those cohabiting for 10 years have married each other, just under four in 10 have separated, and slightly over one in 10 are still living together as a couple. Despite Law Commission recommendations that cohabiting couples should be entitled to inheritance rights after two years of living together and the same rights as married couples after five years, there appears no firm intention to introduce any reforms.

Cohabiting couples who run a business, own property and other assets need to be aware that in the event of a relationship breakdown the law treats each party as two unrelated individuals with no automatic share of any property, though there are rights to claim maintenance for any children.

There are many quite simple methods of everyone being protected with the added advantage of certainty in the business and domestic circumstances.

All business should have an agreement to reflect ownership rights. There is rarely a good reason for only one of the couple to be referred to on all the legal and corporate documents.

Make a will to set out what should happen to the assets and consider the tax implications. If one partner dies, the other will not inherit their assets unless a will has been made to that effect. It’s essential that cohabiting couples know how to protect themselves, their partner and their business from the legal and financial complications which can arise in the event of separation or death.

Agree to sign a legally binding Cohabitation Agreement that sets out what will happen to property, business and other assets, should the worst happen. Whilst this may seem cold hearted, no one know what the future holds – and the stresses of running a business with a life-partner could just as easily drive a wedge between the couple as it could bring them closer together.

A Cohabitation Agreement states how property, a business, personal belongings and savings should be split so the rights of each are protected should the relationship break down. Cohabitation agreements offer more protection than pre-nuptial agreements, which are still not binding in the courts in England and Wales despite the Radmacher ruling.

Long term security and peace of mind can be achieved by setting down your intentions clearly at the start. Don’t trust your business to luck when it can be protected by law.

Read more:
Cohabiting couple? Don’t trust your business to luck

Spurned by wealthy romantics including Paul McCartney, pre-nups are beginning to hold more sway with the courts and are usually seen as the best option for bosses who are contemplating trying the knot, or anyone with assets to protect. Here we look at the pros, cons, how’s and why’s of pre-nups in the context of owner managed businesses.

Pre nuptial agreements have traditionally been viewed with cynicism. Indeed, during the heady days of romance many find it inconceivable that their wedded bliss could end in divorce. However thousands do, and with divorce rates remaining stubbornly high, the once inflammatory topic of the pre-nup has become much more acceptable.

Pre-nups enable individuals to ring-fence part of their wealth at the outset of marriage. For business owners who may have spent a significant proportion of their pre-marriage life launching and nurturing their company, a pre-nup could be a crucial agreement. Likewise for couples who have built a business together – and, where there is much more to lose – it could prevent a marriage breakdown from derailing the business.

Previously pre-nups were never considered truly enforceable in England, unlike in neighbouring Scotland, but this all changed with the Radmacher judgment in 2010. Hailed as a victory for modern society, it acknowledged the value of the pre-nup by asserting that, if entered into by both parties, fully informed of all the relevant information, then the courts would likely uphold it.

There are numerous reasons why a pre-nup can help protect and preserve your interests, not least because they manage expectations and crucially equip couples with solutions long before problems can arise – a factor that can go a long way to avoiding substantial litigation costs at a later date.

Being able to agree to the distribution and management of assets in a rational and level-headed manner enables a divorce (if such an outcome occurs) to proceed with minimal disruption to your business. No artificial timeframe is imposed and divorce proceedings can be completed much more amicably, quickly and efficiently – a benefit that can be critical to the health of your firm.

Many couples who have been down this track vouch for the fact that these agreements can, and often do, avoid the conflict and emotional trauma that can be played out in the divorce process. And as such hostility and acrimony can have a terrible impact on you personally, so too can it detrimentally impact on your business.

If you have business interests to preserve, then – however unpalatable it may sound  – a prenuptial agreement is a recommended and intelligent step to protect your hard earned assets and achievements.

Read more:
Why pre-nups can protect your family business

Read more:
How to avoid divorce killing the business