How Should I Choose A Divorce Lawyer?

When you and your spouse have decided that you are no longer able to stay married, it is important to choose the right solicitor to help you through the divorce process. This will be an emotional time for you and therefore you need to find a solicitor who can be practical, professional and who is on your side during this difficult time.

It is important to take your time and do some research to ensure that you get the best possible representation, no matter what your circumstances are. It is also important to know that the law is different in Scotland and Northern Ireland than it is in England and Wales, so you need to make sure that your solicitor has expertise in divorce in the area of the UK that relates to you.

First and foremost you need to know that the solicitor you use has experience in family law. There are a number of ways you can check this. The solicitor’s website will detail their expertise and you should meet them in person for a discussion about your circumstances. This meeting not only allows you to understand their expertise, but it also helps you to decide if you feel comfortable with them acting on your behalf.

You need to be able to communicate freely with your solicitor so if they make you feel uncomfortable by using long words and legal jargon they are probably not the right fit for you. Many solicitors will offer a free initial discussion to learn more about your situation and this gives you an opportunity to review them too.

It may be important to you to keep conflict to a minimum, especially if there are children involved in the divorce, and by using a collaborative family solicitor you can achieve this. Collaborative family law allows both you and your spouse to meet with your solicitors to work through your divorce together without going to court and you sign an agreement to this effect. This can help to significantly reduce the animosity and bring your divorce to a conclusion as amicably as possible.

Choosing a solicitor to represent you can be difficult, but if you take your time and research your options before making a choice, you can ensure you end up with a solicitor you are comfortable with.

This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

Are DIY Wills A False Economy?

Writing your own Will has become quite a popular idea, especially since the economic downturn, with many people looking to cut costs in all areas of their lives. Most people consider the use of a ‘Do It Yourself’ Will kit to be completely safe, but is this really true?

Whilst writing a Will with a DIY kit may seem like an easy thing to do, the reality is not so straight forward. The consequences of your cost savings may not come to light until after you die, when the results could be devastating for your family members.

There are many simple mistakes which can be made using a DIY Will kit and whilst they may seem relatively minor, in reality, they can render your Will null and void and mean that you die intestate, leaving the Government to determine how to divide your estate.

The effects of dying intestate can mean that your spouse will only inherit a percentage of your total estate, which could result in financial issues which were completely unintentional on your part.

In addition, if both you and your partner die and your children need a legal guardian, if your Will is not valid due to a mistake you made when writing it, your children may be placed into care and a court will decide where they will live without any of your wishes being considered.

Some of the more common mistakes made when drafting a DIY Will are:

  • Signing a Will and using witnesses who stand to inherit from the estate (meaning that they will be unable to do so);
  • Not updating a Will properly following births, marriage or divorce; and
  • Not having a tax efficient Will, meaning more inheritance tax is payable than might otherwise be necessary.

So you can see that making a Will yourself exposes you and your family to a certain amount of risk of your Will being invalidated as a result of any mistakes or omissions you’ve made. Therefore, using a specialist solicitor to draft your Will for you will protect your loved ones and ensure that their future is safeguarded once you die. In most cases this will be a small price to pay in comparison to the risks of a DIY Will.


This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

Same Sex Marriage And The Law

At the end of March, the first same sex weddings took place in England and Wales with David Cameron confirming his support saying that it demonstrated Britain’s ‘proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth’.

Whilst equality in marriage may divide opinion, in addition to this there are implications for the laws around marriage in England and Wales with the introduction of same sex marriage.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 allows same sex couples in England and Wales to:

  • Marry in a civil ceremony
  • Be married by a religious organisation which agrees to undertake the ceremony
  • Convert any civil partnership into a marriage if they wish to
  • Allow an individual to change their gender without needing to end their marriage

The Act also protects any religious organisation from having to carry out same sex marriages if they do not wish to.

So these amendments all seem relatively straight forward and they are, but there are some exceptions that do not apply to same sex marriages.

The first exception is that same sex couples will not be able to divorce on the grounds of adultery, because the law defines adultery as a sexual relationship outside of marriage with someone of the opposite sex. The second exception is that a same sex marriage cannot be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation.

In addition to these exceptions, pension rights are currently not equal, but this will need to be reviewed and reported on by the Secretary of State by 1st July this year.

This also brings into question the place of civil partnerships in England and Wales and whether couples of opposite sex should be allowed to have a civil partnership rather than just the option to marry. Again, the Secretary of State will need to review this and consult on the options.

As the law only applies to England and Wales, same sex marriage is currently treated as a civil partnership in Northern Ireland. Scotland is currently debating this issue in the hope that it also becomes law there.


This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

Seven Good Reasons To Make A Will Now

Making a Will is not normally high on a list of priorities, nor is it a particularly engaging activity, but there are a number of excellent reasons why you should make a Will, and do it soon.

Your wishes will be fulfilled – whatever you decide should happen after your death, both to your estate but also regarding your funeral, can be stipulated in your Will. Therefore, if you want specific music played at your funeral or you want a portion of your estate to be given to a favourite charity, this can be made a certainty by using a Will.

Intestacy won’t apply – the laws of intestacy, which are applied to an estate if no Will is made can be very strict and depending on the size of your estate, there may be a limit as to how much your spouse will be given. In the event of you dying with no blood relatives, your estate will be given over in total to the Crown.

Your children will be provided for – if you have children, you will be able to stipulate who you wish to be their legal guardian. You will also be able to make financial provisions for them, for example, to remain in the family home until they reach adulthood. Without a Will, they could be taken into care until a decision over who will look after them can be made by the court, and even then, they could be placed with someone you would not have chosen.

Protect your partner if you are not married – common law partners have no legal rights at all so if you and your partner have never married and you die leaving no Will, there is the very real possibility that your partner will be in financial difficulty. Your Will should be used to protect your partner from such an event.

Inheritance Tax Issues – any estate worth over £325,000 is subject to inheritance tax and a Will can help you plan more tax efficiently, as many properties are worth more than this alone.

Divorced but not remarried – many people do not realise that if you are divorced and not remarried and you leave no Will, your ex-spouse will inherit your estate.

To help out your family – when you die intestate the whole process of probate takes much longer and is much more complicated. This will leave your loved ones with a complicated legal process and all of the funeral costs to find, whilst also grieving for you. This has to be one of the best reasons to act now and make your Will.

Whilst some of these points raised may not apply to you and your circumstances, some of them will and those should be enough for you to recognise the value of making a Will soon.

This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

Are Legal Aid Cuts Having An Effect On Family Courts?

Government cuts across all sectors have been biting for a number of years now, but the cuts in the legal budget have taken time to be fully realised and the impact on the family courts are hitting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The knock on effect of the changes in legal aid mean that in 42 per cent of cases now coming to the family court neither party have a solicitor, compared with just 12 per cent before the legal aid cuts. People without legal representation are known as Litigants in Person, or LIPs and a lack of legal advice can have a negative effect both on the court system and on the people involved.

A lack of representation brings a number of issues. The first is on the parents who are struggling to manage the access arrangements for their children. Without legal advice and representation, they will certainly find it difficult to know what processes need to be followed and they will also not have the experience to be able to argue their case effectively in court.

When taking a custody case to court, there are a number of tests which could be utilised if there are allegations of alcohol or drug abuse, such as hair follicle sampling, but tests like these are proving too expensive for the normal person on the street and this is affecting the outcome of some cases.

Victims of domestic abuse are sometimes having to face their abuser in court now because in order to qualify for legal aid – thus to be represented and supported, they have to have a doctor’s letter, which can cost up to £75 and some cannot afford this cost.

The knock on effect of litigants in person in the courts are that judges are having to guide them and use lots of discretion during the case, which would not be necessary with a  lawyer present. Therefore cases are taking longer to resolve in an already backed up court system and some private custody hearings are now taking 6 months or longer to be resolved.

Whilst no one can deny that savings need to be made, should these cuts really have to affect the most vulnerable in our society?

This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

How Much Will I Get?

A Brief And Simple Guide To s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

In my view, the biggest and most difficult question client’s ask me relate to “how much will I get” following on from their divorce or dissolution of their (same sex) partnership.

It is not an easy question to answer and whilst clients may desire direct straightforward answers, the reality is straightforward answers are easy to provide in determining this question. It is difficult providing a range of figures that make be a likely award when full financial disclosure has been given, but it is dangerous and nigh on impossible at the outset of a case when there is no financial or very limited financial disclosure.

There are many reasons why Solicitors are evasive initially when it comes to giving this advice and never 100% confident even when they do. This does not reflect on the Solicitor but on the current state of the law.

The easiest way to explain this is to consider the following:

a)      Stare Decisis

b)     The sources of the law

c)      The process of coming to a decision


Stare Decisis

Sorry to be a bit technical at this juncture. Stare Decisis the process putting it simply, where courts follow the decision of a previous court to ensure consistency. So, if two very similar people say, undertake the same criminal activity anywhere in the country, they should, at least in theory receive the same punishment or sentence.

In family proceedings, this does not happen. The previous decisions of the court are not binding in a subsequent court on a similar matter (and many would argue that no two family cases are ever the same anyway).

Instead, in family proceedings, previous decisions of the courts are persuasive. That is, they should be sufficient to persuade a subsequent judge in a similar matter – but may not automatically do so.

So even very experienced practitioners who understand the law and keep abreast of the ne legal cases coming out of the higher courts will not with any degree of certainty be able to tell you always, certainly not initially, “how much will I get”.


Sources of the Law

The law that we rely on as professionals in helping us come to a decision on what we think may be a possible outcome of a financial case are mainly as follows:

a)      Case law – previous cases that have taken place that may be similar in at least some ways to your case and thus give us some guidance. But note, Stare Decisis applies as I have mentioned above.

b)     Statute – these are laws passed by Parliament, there are many, many laws passed by Parliament and we still refer to the ones that have not been repealed from the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and so on. Familiarity with these Acts of Parliament is essential but do not provide the whole picture.

c)      Secondary Legislation – often when an Act of Parliament is passed, a lot of the fine detail if often left to a later date to be dealt with, usually by a Minister. This secondary legislation does not often have the same scrutiny as the Act itself does. Nonetheless, often these Statutory Instruments contain the “meat” of the “bones” of the Act of Parliament

d)     Love them or hate them, the EU also passes legislation which impacts on family law. We always need to keep an eye on what is happening at EU level to ensure that our domestic laws are compliant. Sometimes the EU legislation directly relates to family law, such as Brussels II, but often there are indirect consequences of EU legislation which permeates its way into family law such as The Human Rights legislation (as I shall generically put it).

All that information combined, helps us to come to some idea of what you may be entitled to when considering the financial aspects of a divorce or civil partnership dissolution. That is not the end of it.


The Process of Coming to a Decision

The main piece of legislation (in this case an Act of Parliament) is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In that legislation, when deciding how much each party will get in a financial settlement we of course consider section 25. Often this is referred to as the “s25 factors”. Lawyers consider this section in detail and those who don’t do so at their own peril:
Section 25 (2) says: As regards the exercise of the powers of the court [in relation to the financial aspects of a divorce or civil partnership dissolution ] in relation to a party to the marriage, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters-

(a)    the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the marriage to take steps to acquire;

(b)    the financial needs, obligation and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(c)    the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage’

(d)   the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(e)    any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

(f)     the contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(g)   the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it’

(h)   in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to each of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.

Having considered all these matters, we can come to a view. It’s not as straight forward as it looks, or is it?

I have been undertaking family law since 1995 and I still have to sit and think and deal with competing dilemmas of the law before coming to a conclusion that I can convey with some confidence and some sense to a client.

Please note that this article has been written with the lay person in mind. There are some technical inaccuracies where I have taken poetic licence to convey the point or sentiment. At no stage whatsoever should you at all rely on the information included herein.


This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

E-Z Legal Form

Ann Aldrich used an “E-Z Legal Form” when she made out her will in 2004, a decision that proved to be a good choice for two nieces who cited the document’s lack of a residuary clause.

In a decision issued last week, the Florida Supreme Court ruled for the nieces, though they weren’t mentioned in the will. The court said money acquired by Aldrich after the will was made out should be distributed under the laws of intestacy, which govern distribution of property for those who die without a will. The reason: The E-Z form did not have a residuary clause providing for the disposition of property not listed in the document.

Concurring Justice Barbara Pariente saw the ruling as a cautionary tale. “While I appreciate that there are many individuals in this state who might have difficulty affording a lawyer,” Pariente said, “this case does remind me of the old adage ‘penny-wise and pound-foolish.’ …

“I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. As this case illustrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator’s intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney’s fees—the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place.”

Aldrich’s will had left all her property to her sister, and then to her brother if her sister predeceased her. Because the sister died first, the brother had claimed he was entitled to the entire estate.

The will specifically said all “listed” items should go to Aldrich’s brother, the Florida Supreme Court said in an opinion by Justice Peggy Quince. “Therefore, it is clear that the testator did not intend for any property not listed to be distributed by the will. Any other interpretation of the testator’s actions would require this court to rewrite the will to include provisions regarding property for which the testator made none.”

Aldrich had signed a handwritten note after her sister’s death saying all her “worldly possessions” should pass to her brother, with the exception of certain bank accounts that should pass to a niece, the brother’s daughter. The document had just one witness—the niece who was to get the bank accounts—and was unenforceable under Florida law.

The nieces who asserted an interest in the estate were the daughters of a different brother who had already died.

The comments in this article are not intended to constitute legal advice. As ever, in all the articles written, it is imperative that you take independent legal advice before acting on any of the information contained herein.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

What Are The Duties Of An Executor?

If you have been named as an executor in a loved one’s Will, you will have a number of tasks which you will need to complete as part of executing the Will. If you have lost someone close, you will be dealing with your emotions and grief too which might make the whole process more difficult for you, but your legal responsibilities as executor still apply.

This can be a daunting prospect for you but by exploring the responsibilities and duties of an executor, you may feel more comfortable with the process.

The first thing you will need to do is to obtain the death certificate and establish yourself as the executor of the Will. This can be done with the original Will.

The next step in the process will be to initially value the estate. This could be difficult to do, especially if there is property involved so it is best to ask an estate agent to provide you with a valuation for any property included within the estate.

Once you have made this valuation, you may apply for a Grant of Probate. This will provide you with the power to distribute the estate and access bank accounts, investments and pension schemes. It is important at this stage to identify if any inheritance tax will be payable on the estate. Any estate worth over £325,000 will be subject to inheritance tax.

There is a fee payable to obtain a Grant of Probate and you will also need to attend an interview at the Probate Registry. Once this step is completed, you must ensure that any inheritance tax owed on the estate is paid. This may be difficult if most of the assets are tied up in property, but there is an option to pay in instalments if that is the case.

Once the Grant of Probate has been issued you can then start to administer the estate. This means you will be able to access bank accounts, savings, pension schemes and any other sources of money to transfer over to an executor’s bank account which you will have to open.

You will then need to collect any money owed to the estate and in addition, pay off any debts owed by the estate, including funeral costs and solicitors fees where necessary.

Any property will have to be placed onto the market and once sold, be distributed as stipulated in the Will. Your final requirements are to prepare the accounts for sign off by HMRC, notify the beneficiaries of their inheritance, send them a copy of the accounts and obtain sign off from each of them and then distribute all of the assets.

If this seems like a very complicated and stressful process, you may benefit from appointing a specialist solicitor to complete the probate process on your behalf.

This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

Divorce Pay Out Ordered Even With Three Pre-Nups

Only last month it was announced that prenuptial agreements, better known as pre-nups, would be made legally binding in England and Wales and yet this week the media has reported that the wealthy daughter of a multimillionaire media mogul has been ordered to pay her husband £1.2 million in a divorce settlement, even though there were three pre-nups in place.

This sad tale of the breakdown of a marriage and then the financial wrangling of all the parties involved has ensured that this couple’s divorce has made the papers.

Ms Luckwell, the daughter of Mike Luckwell, who owns the media company responsible for Bob the Builder, married her husband Mr Limata in 2005. He signed a prenuptial agreement and then followed this up with two additional agreements. Their marriage lasted 7 years until it broke down in 2012 over financial issues.

Mr Limata now has no assets and has debts of over a quarter of a million pounds. In contrast Ms Luckwell has nearly £7 million, which is mostly made up of a London property where she and her children live, which was purchased and given to her by her father.

Her father told the court that he would stop paying for the couple’s three children to go to private school and that he would cut off his daughter if she paid any money to Mr Limata.

However, the judge ordered that an award was unavoidable because the children would be living in luxury with the mother and in poverty with their father and if the roles were reversed, there would undoubtedly be an award made in the same circumstances.

Ms Luckwell faces having to sell her property in Westminster to be able to pay the settlement to her ex-husband, who will receive a 3 bedroom house for £900,000 to live in until the youngest child is 22 years old. It will then be sold and he will receive 55% of the proceeds to buy a new home for himself.

This judgment demonstrates that currently prenuptial agreements are taken into account, however, the financial status of the person who signed it will be factored in to any decisions made.

If you are considering a prenuptial agreement, you should seek independent legal advice so you are clear about what this means for you.


This information provided in this article is not intended to constitute legal advice and each relationship breakdown requires careful consideration in our view by a fully qualified Solicitor before decisions are made and before you embark on a certain course of action.

Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898

Prevention Of Terrorism Act 1988 (And 1998)

This article could be considered in conjunction with the comments I have made in the article entitled “All Catholics are Terrorists”.

It was 1989. I had completed my dissertation for my Honours on my LLB course. The paper was entitled “is unjust law, law?”. I will not bore you with the jurisprudence of the points made in that tome. What I will do is indulge myself a little to tell you a little of what my paper concluded.

In that paper, I reminded my readers (probably only my mum at the time and probably now, not a whole lot more!) that we (the British) were at war with the IRA. Some called it The Troubles (what an amazing euphemism – if only it were not so sad) and some called it a conflict. I am sure that there are legal implications of what that whole episode was named but whatever it was called, it was a bloody conflict, with serious, frequent and fatal blood shed on both sides of the fence.

Also around that time, for a bit more background information, we enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1988. At the time of its enactment, the Houses of Parliament were told, assured, convinced, that the Act would only remain in place for 14 WEEKS. Ten years later, it was supplemented (or supplanted depending on your political persuasion) by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1998.

At that time, the British Government were riled, I was at that time serving in the Territorial Army and very much on the “side” of the British. We wanted to sort out the murdering Irish b*****ds.

The problem for me as a person was that I was also in the final throes of my law degree. I believed then and I believe now in the Rule of Law, of Justice, of right and wrong. (Doesn’t everybody?) Fiat Justitia Ruat Coelum MEANS something. Without that, as a Solicitor (as I am now) would be just a job, a deluded food processor in a meat factory. Bad law is bad law. It should not happen and should not be allowed to happen.

Back to my dissertation – in amongst other things, I wrote in my work that the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six would and should be released. My predictions came true. Sadly, I cannot take credit for being a Mystic Meg of the legal world (oh, if only) and neither can I take any credit for being a legal genius. It was obvious that this would happen, frankly.

Again, I will not bore you with WHY they were likely to be acquitted but I will say this: The politicians at that time, on both sides of the House, meddled with the law to put right things “right” that are politically unsatisfactory at the time. But politically unsatisfactory to who? To the politicians of course. Things will go wrong and often do, when politicians meddle in the legal system to fix political problems. Miscarriages of justice will occur and worse than that, if such a thing could be contemplated, is that or rights as citizens are made a tiny bit weaker because of it.

You may have forgotten about the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, you may have forgotten about the IRA terrorists and you may have forgotten about the fear that they put in the daily lives of the British Population and the countless, pointless loss of live even here on the mainland.

You may have even forgotten that many men and a woman were incarcerated for what the law says they did not do – for over 30 years in total. 30 wasted years of their lives that we cannot give back to them. 30 political years of vote wins. And of course that would not happen now – not now, with hindsight or with the advances in our legal morality. Surely not.

I hope not.

Think about the vile murdering Muslim terrorists now. None of them charged with any offence, despite them being incarcerated in Gitmo for god only knows how long. The incongruity of this paradox hurts my head. On the one hand, we “know” that they are involved in terrorism; we know they make our streets unsafe and put at risk the lives of our children.

But to keep them incarcerated without charge is anathema to any right minded person’s moral and legal code, let alone the established legal code of a developed civilised democratic nation. That utter unbelievable incredible faux pas not only destroyed the credibility of the USA as the bastion of good and the defender of Right, but fuelled the fire of terrorism to a magnitude never seen before as far as I am aware. That is bad news. The USA involved politics in the Rule of Law and frankly fucked up big time.

We, the British (well English and Welsh to be precise) are not that far behind. We have been involved in illegal rendition flights, sending BRITISH CITIZENS to third party countries that either are despotic or rub shoulders with them, knowing that they will be tortured. British security forces have been in the same building or room as British Citizens who have been tortured not by our forces (thank god) but by those whose countries they use, thereby creating a deniability of torture at our hands.

The story goes on and on. Let me put it into stark relief what happens when politicians are trusted to mess with the law if you are still not yet convinced. We are now talking about holding specialist trials. Trials where all the qualified personnel, the lawyers for both the defence and the prosecution, the Judges, the whole lot, have security clearance  as the information that may be put in these hearings is so sensitive. I do understand the need to maintain secrecy to protect our working methods, our fight against terrorism, our need to protect the personnel and so on. But at what price?

The defence only gets the “gist” (I kid you not) of the case against the accused. There will be parts where even the defence will not be allowed to hear and the prosecution’s case that is put to the Judge (obviously security cleared) without the defence even present.

This is utter madness.

I know we are all pissed off with terrorism and 9/11 and 7/7 more to the point for us was a disgusting act of violence that should never again be allowed to happen.

But really? Not even knowing what the case is against you before you are potentially fully convicted of an offence that you do not fully get to hear about and leaving you in prison for life. LIFE.

I am ashamed that in 20 years’ time, our children will look back on us and wonder what on earth we were thinking to allow this to happen. Just like twenty-somethings now seem to question what the bloody hell we were doing when the PTA came into force.


The comments in this article are not intended to constitute legal advice. As ever, in all the articles written, it is imperative that you take independent legal advice before acting on any of the information contained herein.


Shak Inayat
0207 183 2898