Handling Title Defects: When Is Indemnity Insurance the Right Call?

When buying a property, most people don’t expect to be faced with ancient covenants, missing deeds, or rights of way that no one knew about. But these issues – known as title defects – are more common than you might think. As conveyancing solicitors, one of our key roles is to uncover them and decide how best to manage the risk. Sometimes the answer is straightforward. Other times, we have to reach into the legal toolbox and pull out something called indemnity insurance.

So what exactly is title indemnity insurance, and when should it be used? Let’s break it down.

What is a Title Defect?

A title defect is any legal issue with the ownership or use of a property that could affect the buyer’s rights. This might include:

A missing right of way (e.g. the property has no legal right to access the main road);
A restrictive covenant (a rule in an old deed that says, for example, you can’t build an extension);
A breach of a covenant by a previous owner;
Lack of planning or building regulation approvals for old works;
Unregistered easements (such as informal access paths);
Lost or missing deeds (especially in unregistered land).

These defects can make a buyer or lender nervous. If left unresolved, they might affect the property’s value, future saleability, or even result in legal action.

What is Title Indemnity Insurance?

Title indemnity insurance is a one-off insurance policy taken out to cover the risk of a defect causing loss. It does not fix the defect. Instead, it offers financial protection in case the issue ever causes a real-world problem.

For example, if there’s a restrictive covenant that says you can’t extend the property, but an extension has already been built, an indemnity policy could cover the cost of defending any future legal claim.

Policies are usually inexpensive (often under a few hundred pounds), last indefinitely, and are transferable to future buyers and lenders.

When Should Indemnity Insurance Be Used?

Not every title issue needs indemnity insurance. Sometimes, it’s better to resolve the issue directly (for example, by getting a deed of variation or applying to register a right of way). However, there are situations where indemnity insurance is the practical, commercial solution:

1. The Defect is Historical and the Risk is Remote
  For example, a breach of covenant from 40 years ago that has never been enforced.
2. The Seller Cannot Remedy the Defect
  If a right of way was never properly granted and the neighbouring landowner refuses to cooperate.
3. Lenders Require Protection
  Mortgage lenders often insist on indemnity cover for missing consents or rights.
4. Time or Cost Constraints
  Insurance can avoid lengthy negotiations or tribunal applications.

Limitations and Cautions

Indemnity insurance isn’t a silver bullet. It comes with conditions – and if you breach them, the policy may become void. For example, most policies will be invalidated if you approach a third party (like a neighbour or the council) to ask about the defect.

Also, indemnity policies do not cover:

Loss of value due to general stigma;
Physical repair costs (e.g. fixing structural problems);
Future planning applications that might uncover the defect.

That’s why it’s important to understand what you’re getting – and not getting – with the policy.

Final Thoughts

Title defects can sound intimidating, but they’re not always deal-breakers. With our team of experienced conveyancers at Lisa’s Law and proper risk management, they can often be dealt with swiftly and safely. Indemnity insurance is indeed often very useful in a conveyancer’s kit – but it should be used wisely and only where appropriate.

If you’re buying a property and your solicitor mentions a “title defect,” don’t panic. Ask for a clear explanation of the risk, whether insurance is suitable, and what it will (and won’t) protect you against.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Lisa’s Law Helps Company Achieve New Sponsor Licence Following Ownership Change

We were recently instructed by a company that previously held a skilled worker sponsor licence. The company underwent a change in majority shareholding and changed its name. However, the company did not report the change in shareholders or apply for a new sponsor licence within the required 20 working days.

Instead, they only reported the name change to the Home Office several months later. The change of name was rejected, as a new licence was required due to the change in controlling ownership. The company instructed us to apply for a new sponsorship to continue sponsoring the previously sponsored employee.

Our involvement (how we helped)

We advised the company that they must obtain a new Skilled Worker sponsor licence due to the change in majority ownership. We prepared and submitted a priority sponsor licence application for the new company, including representations requesting the Home Office exercise discretion regarding the late notification. Following this, we obtained the company’s documents to demonstrate continuity of operations, including share transfer documentation, proof of name change, and employee continuity.

For the employee, we understand that this type of company change falls under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings – Protection of Employment), and the employee does not need to apply for a new work visa. We explained the TUPE in our representations, clarifying that the employee’s sponsorship should continue without the need for a new visa application.

After the new licence was successfully granted, we helped the company to submit a change of circumstances request to surrender their old licence, and formally accept sponsorship responsibility for the skilled worker.

Outcome

The new sponsorship licence was granted within 10 working days. The old sponsorship licence was made dormant, then the skilled worker was transferred to the new licence, without the need to apply for a new skilled worker visa.

Need help with a sponsor licence application? Contact Lisa’s Law today.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Landowners Begin High Court Legal Challenge to Leasehold Reform

A group of landowners have begun a judicial review in the high court over the introduction of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act. The legislation, which was passed by MPs at the end of the last parliament, is designed to expand the rights of leaseholders. You can find out more about the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (LAFRA) in our previous explainer here. Let’s take a look at what the landowners are challenging and the implications of this legal action for leasehold reform.

Judicial review in the High Court

The judicial review, which aims to prevent many of the reforms in LAFRA from taking place, has been initiated by a number of wealthy landowners, including the Duke of Westminster’s Grosvenor Estate under the Cadogan and Grosvenor Group. Between them, the six groups challenging the reforms own the freehold interest in more than 390,000 leasehold flats and houses across England and Wales, less than 9% of the total number of leasehold properties.

The challenge has been brought under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with the freeholders claiming that some of the measures contained in the Act are contrary to their right to enjoy private property.

The hearing in the Divisional Court began on Tuesday 15^th July and is set to conclude by Friday 18^th July. Subscribe to our newsletter for further updates.

What measures of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act are being challenged?

There are three aspects of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act which are being challenged by the freeholders. This includes:

The removal of the requirement for leaseholders who possess leases under 80 years to pay 50% of the marriage value to the freeholder.
The removal of the requirements for the leaseholder to pay the freeholder’s costs when extending the lease
The exclusion of ground rents worth more than 0.1% of the freehold vacant possession value from being included when calculating the price which is payable for the extension.

It is claimed by the landowners that they could lose hundreds of millions of pounds as a collective due to the advent of the reforms, and that they will not be fairly compensated by the advent of the above measures.

What happens next?

Unfortunately for leaseholders, the legal challenges mean an indefinite delay to the implementation of many aspects of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act. The potential for appeals by either side following the conclusion of the High Court case, regardless of the outcome, could result in the reforms becoming mired in legal battles for the next few years. Although the government committed to replace leasehold with a “fairer model” in their manifesto, the reality of this happening currently looks a long way off.

Nevertheless, the Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook reiterated the government’s commitment to bringing the leasehold system to an end by the conclusion of this parliament (2029). But what does the government plan to replace leasehold with? To learn more, read our article all about the government’s plans for a new commonhold model here.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Care Provider Refused Judicial Review Application Due To Sponsor Licence Revocation

In late June 2025, the Administrative Court refused a care provider’s renewed application for judicial review following its skilled worker sponsor licence revocation by the Home Office. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State acted lawfully in revoking the licence based on insufficient evidence to prove that the roles sponsored were genuine.

Background

On 20 March 2024, the Home Office suspended HE Reigns Healthcare Services Ltd’s sponsor licence, citing serious concerns that the organisation posed a threat to immigration control. Specifically, the Secretary of State expressed that the provider had assigned, or intended to assign, Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) at a scale disproportionate to its business profile and that the sponsored roles were not genuine vacancies.

The provider was invited to submit evidence to verify the legitimacy of the sponsored roles, including staff lists, justification for recruitment levels, and evidence that sponsored workers were carrying out the duties listed in their CoS. The response from the provider disputed the allegations and highlighted a newly secured contract to justify its recruitment needs, though the precise scope and sufficiency of the evidence submitted remained unclear.

On 12 June 2024, the licence was formally revoked. The Secretary of State noted, among other issues, that 50 of the 124 sponsored workers could not be identified on payroll records, and that the volume of contracted work did not support the level of recruitment.

Judicial Review Claim

HE Reigns brought a judicial review claim, asserting procedural unfairness and contesting the conclusions drawn by the Home Office. Key arguments included:

The revocation process lacked transparency and fairness;
The evidence showed sufficient work to justify the sponsored roles;
A finding of deliberate dishonesty was required for revocation;
Inadequate consideration was given to contracts and the workers’ actual status;
The 20MB limit for uploading evidence was unreasonable;
There was insufficient engagement with their representations.

The Secretary of State responded that:

There were reasonable grounds to suspect non-genuine vacancies, which justified revocation;
The evidence submitted was inadequate;
There is no requirement to prove dishonesty to revoke a licence;
Their approach to the evidence and procedural limits complied with public law standards.

The Court’s Decision

The Court ruled against HE Reigns Healthcare. It found:

The Secretary of State is not required to prove deceit or dishonesty to revoke a licence where non-genuine vacancies are suspected;
The claim that 50 workers were unaccounted for was supported by the evidence, given the lack of payroll records or explanation;
There was no obligation on the Secretary of State to conduct interviews or go beyond the representations made by the provider;
No public law error occurred in the handling of the case or the format in which evidence was accepted.

The Court ultimately refused permission for the claim to proceed.

Conclusion

While this case does not create new law, it serves as a critical reminder of the stringent compliance obligations placed on sponsor licence holders. From a UK immigration perspective, the case reinforces the importance of proactive and detailed record-keeping, particularly in demonstrating the genuineness of sponsored roles and ensuring complete and coherent responses to Home Office enquiries.

Employers should not wait for enforcement action to review their systems. Our team continues to assist sponsors in navigating their duties under the current immigration framework, especially in light of the upcoming rule changes to the Skilled Worker route from 22 July 2025.

If you are concerned about the strength of your compliance framework or have received correspondence from the Home Office, we recommend seeking legal advice at the earliest opportunity. Contact Lisa’s Law today to find out how we can help you.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Prior Settlement Barred Landlord’s Forfeiture Procedure in Court of Appeal Decision

Generally, settlement agreements are designed to resolve disputes and prevent further legal actions, including forfeiture, unless explicitly stated otherwise. If the landlord initiated forfeiture proceedings despite the existence of a prior settlement agreement that addresses the same issues, they may have acted inconsistently with the terms or intentions of that agreement.

In this appeal case, the court reaffirmed that settlement agreements should be interpreted according to their plain language and legal context.

Background

This case involves a dispute over whether the Landlord Company could seek forfeiture of the Tenant’s lease of a flat, or whether a settlement agreement from December 2021 prevented such action. The Tenant occupied the flat under a lease from 1980 for a duration of 999 years. The lease includes covenants to keep the premises in repair and provisions for re-entry if breached. In 2020-2021, water leaks from the Tenant’s flat caused damage to the flat below. Investigations identified issues with the shower area, including faulty grouting and possible structural cracks.

The Landlord Company issued notices demanding repairs, but delays occurred. Notably, the Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the 1938 Act restricts the ability of landlords to serve notices or pursue forfeiture for breaches related to repairs, especially if breaches are disputed or settled. After the Landlord Company filed three applications in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) alleging breach of repairing covenants, the parties reached settlement in December 2021 which included the Tenant admitting breach, paying £75,000, and covenants not to sue or pursue claims related to the dispute.

Legal Issue

The core issue on appeal is whether the Landlord Company was barred from seeking forfeiture due to the settlement agreement, or whether the agreement effectively prevented it from continuing proceedings. The appeal also concerns the costs awarded.

The Court found that the agreement released the Tenant from claims related to the proceedings and prohibited either party from suing the other regarding the same. However, there is debate over whether this release includes or excludes forfeiture proceedings.

The lower court’s decision was that the settlement did not prevent forfeiture proceedings, but the Judge granted the Tenant relief on costs.

The Tenant appeals, primarily challenging the costs order, with the legal question cantered on whether the settlement agreement barred the Landlord Company from seeking forfeiture and related proceedings.

Decision

The Judge emphasised that the Tenant’s admission of breach under clause 4 of the settlement agreement was crucial in favour of the Landlord. However, the analysis of section 168 revealed that its primary purpose is to determine whether a breach has occurred, serving as a step towards potential forfeiture but not constituting a forfeiture itself. The case highlighted that remedies like injunctions or damages remain available alongside or instead of forfeiture, and that a breach determination under section 168(4) does not automatically lead to forfeiture, especially if the breach has been remedied or if the right to forfeit has been waived.

The Court also clarified that in this case, the benefits gained from the section 168 application—such as additional obligations and deadlines—were significant and cannot be dismissed as insubstantial. Furthermore, the parties’ legal context suggested that forfeiture was unlikely due to protections under the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938, which makes forfeiture of long leases challenging.

The dispute centred on whether the breach of clauses 3(1) and 5.3 of the lease or the settlement agreement justified forfeiture. The Court concluded that the agreement reshaped the parties’ rights, discharging claims related to lease breaches and limiting future claims to breaches of the agreement itself. Consequently, the Landlord was not entitled to forfeit the lease based on breaches of clauses not incorporated into the lease obligations. The Tenant succeeded in contesting the cost for forfeiture claim by the Landlord.

Our thoughts

This case is a demonstration and reminder on the principle of settlement agreement, and it is crucial for disputed parties to clarify key provisions and to comply with them, when such an agreement is reached.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Would you spend £9,000 on legal fees to claim £2,000 in maintenance? A cautionary tale on Maintenance Pending Suit

That’s what happened in DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B) – a case that serves as a sharp warning for anyone thinking of applying for maintenance pending suit (MPS) during divorce.

The wife’s application, brought just months before trial, was rejected outright. The judge’s verdict? The claim was late, unnecessary, and financially irrational.

What is MPS – and when should you use it?

MPS is a type of interim financial support available to one spouse during divorce proceedings, before a final settlement is reached. It’s there to help meet essential needs – food, housing, bills – when the applicant doesn’t have access to sufficient funds.

But it’s not designed for tactical use, and it’s not a guaranteed fallback. The court must be satisfied that:

There’s a clear and immediate need, and
The request is reasonable – in timing, amount, and cost.

What happened in this case?

The wife applied for £500 per month for a few months – at most, £2,000. But by the time of the hearing, she had spent £8,716 in legal costs on the application alone. The husband had spent over £4,700 defending it.

The court was unimpressed. The final hearing was already scheduled for July 2025, and the parties had around £700,000 in proceeds from a property sale held in solicitors’ accounts. The wife hadn’t proposed drawing from that money until just days before the hearing.

She also argued she might lose her accommodation – but offered no real evidence. The judge pointed out that, if a genuine housing emergency had arisen, the court could have listed a hearing at short notice.

Why was the application refused?

Too late

The claim came months after the failed FDR (settlement hearing). By then, the court felt it was more appropriate to wait for the full trial, where the parties’ finances would be properly assessed.

Not urgent

The wife had regular income from the armed forces and subsidised housing. There was no pressing need for immediate intervention.

Cost outweighed benefit

Spending £9,000 in legal fees to pursue a claim worth £2,000 didn’t stack up. The judge described it as making “no commercial sense whatsoever.”

Lack of engagement with alternatives

The judge questioned why the wife didn’t suggest releasing a modest sum from joint funds earlier – a solution that might have resolved the issue without going to court.

Was it strategic?

The court suspected the application may have been tactical – aimed at influencing later claims or increasing pressure on the husband. But that strategy backfired.

Judges are alert to this kind of approach. Interim claims that appear opportunistic or inflated often damage the applicant’s credibility and risk adverse costs orders.

What are the key lessons for divorcing spouses?

Make early, proportionate applications.

Courts are more likely to grant MPS when it’s made promptly, with clear evidence of need, and without excessive cost.

Explore alternatives before litigating.

Where joint funds exist, consider whether a practical solution can be agreed instead of going to court.

Don’t assume MPS is guaranteed.

Even if your financial position is tight, the court will weigh whether a temporary order is necessary and justified.

Avoid tactical moves.

Applications brought for pressure or positioning often result in wasted costs and strained proceedings.

Final thoughts

The Family Court’s message is clear: maintenance pending suit can offer real support where it’s genuinely needed – but used poorly, it can waste time, money, and goodwill. Before making any application, it pays to ask not just can I?, but should I?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

SSHD v Borges: Deportation Upheld Despite Long Residence and EU Status

Many people believe that once they’ve lived in the UK for over 10 years, especially with EU citizenship, their immigration status is secure. But the reality is far more complex. The UK immigration system makes clear distinctions between legal status, length of residence, and criminal history—and any misstep can put even long-term residents at risk of deportation.

In this article, we look at the case of Mr Borges, a Portuguese national who had lived in the UK since childhood, but whose criminal convictions eventually led to his removal order being upheld by the Court of Appeal. His case raises important questions: does EU citizenship always protect you from deportation? Can long residence offset a serious criminal record? What exactly are the limits of protection under EU law?

If you have an EU background, a complicated immigration history, or past convictions, this case is worth your attention.

Background of SSHD v Borges

Mr Borges, born in India in 1988, came to the UK in 2002 and received a permanent residence card in 2007. In 2008, at age 19, he was convicted of dangerous driving and handling stolen goods. In 2010, he was convicted again for driving offences. Just a year later, in 2011, he was sentenced to 21 months for two robberies, but successfully appealed a deportation decision in 2012. That same year, he received another warning letter. In 2014, he gave up his Indian passport and obtained a Portuguese one. On 3 June 2019, he was convicted of burglary, aggravated burglary, and drug possession, and sentenced to six years.

After his release in October 2022, his EU Settlement Scheme application was refused on suitability grounds, and the Secretary of State of the Home Department (SSHD) made a formal deportation order in November 2022.

Mr Borges appealed, arguing that under Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38, as an EU citizen who had resided continuously in the UK for 10 years, he qualified for the highest level of protection against removal. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) allowed his appeal. The SSHD appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which refused permission to appeal in 2024. The SSHD then applied to the Court of Appeal (the Court).

Legal Issues & Court Analysis

The SSHD’s appeal was based on two grounds: firstly, the UT erred in holding that Mr Borges enjoyed the highest level of protection against removal based on his residence during his time as a non-EU national toward the 10-year threshold. Furthermore, even if Mr Borges qualified for such protection, there were imperative grounds of public security to justify removal.

The Court of Appeal, with permission from the Lord Justice, allowed the appeal and analysed two grounds and made the submissions and decisions as below.

Ground One

On Ground one, whether Mr Borges enjoys the eligibility for enhanced protection, the Court held that Regulation 27(4), interpreted in light of the EU Directive, requires a person to have held EU citizenship throughout the 10-year residence period, not merely as a family member of one. The distinction between primary rights (EU citizens) and derivative rights (non-EU family members) is fundamental, as Article 28(3) must be read in light of related provisions and case law, which emphasize that derivative rights (as family members) differ fundamentally from primary rights of EU citizens. Borges did not become an EU citizen until 2014, which was only shortly before his removal decision, and his earlier residence was as a non-EU family member.

Furthermore, time spent in prison interrupts continuous residence unless strong integrative links are shown, which were not established in this case. Therefore, Borges was not entitled to the highest level of protection. The Court sided with the SSHD on ground one.

Ground Two

On ground 2, whether the tribunals errored in public security assessment, the Court also found that, The F-tT erred in law by not clearly determining whether Borges was entitled to enhanced protection before applying the “imperative grounds” test.

It further erred in assuming jurisdiction to re-assess whether such grounds existed without first identifying a legal error in the SSHD’s decision. The UT compounded this error by making its own evaluation without first setting aside the F-tT’s decision. Therefore, the UT exceeded its jurisdiction. Further, the court held that the tribunal failed to fully engage with Borges’s criminal history, repeated offending, and limited evidence of rehabilitation.

Although Mr Borges had lived in the UK for over two decades and held an EU passport, the court ultimately ruled that he was not entitled to the highest level of protection under EU law. Because he only became an EU citizen partway through his time in the UK, and had multiple criminal convictions with time spent in prison, he was found not to meet the requirement of 10 years’ continuous residence as an EU citizen. The court also agreed that his pattern of offending posed a genuine threat to public security. The Court allowed the SSHD’s appeal on both grounds and the case was remitted for proper reconsideration.

Our comments

Mr Borges’s case is a reminder that immigration status isn’t a guarantee—especially when serious criminal records are involved. It’s not just about how long you’ve lived in the UK, but whether your stay has been legal and whether you’ve followed the rules.

When applying for settlement, the Home Office will always look at the applicant’s character and whether the presence is in the public interest. This means that even if you’ve been in the UK for many years, hold settled status, or have EU citizenship, a criminal record can still put you at risk of removal.

If you have previous convictions or a complex immigration history, seeking legal advice early is essential as it allows you to clearly understand your legal position, assess potential risks, and avoid serious consequences.

If you have the above concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa’s Law. Our professional and experienced legal team would be happy to support you with clear, practical advice tailored to your needs.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Standish v Standish: UK Supreme Court Rules that Sharing Principle Does Not Apply to Non Matrimonial Assets

In a landmark ruling handed down today, the UK Supreme Court has clarified one of the most contested areas in financial remedy law: when can non matrimonial assets be shared after divorce?

The case of Standish v Standish concerned a wealthy couple whose marriage broke down in 2020. At the heart of the dispute was an £80 million transfer from husband to wife during the marriage. The wife claimed this gift had become matrimonial property and should be split equally under the “sharing principle.” The husband argued it was never meant to be shared, and had been transferred for tax planning purposes only.

Today, the UK’s highest court sided with the husband, and in doing so, set a new, definitive standard for how non-matrimonial property is treated in high-value divorces.

What was the dispute?

The husband, a retired investment banker, had amassed significant wealth long before his second marriage. In 2017, concerned about future inheritance tax liabilities, he transferred £77 million to his wife’s sole name. The couple discussed placing the funds into offshore trusts for their children, but the trusts were never set up. The money remained with the wife.

When they later divorced, the wife argued that by transferring those funds during the marriage, the husband had “matrimonialised” them – in other words, turned them into shared assets. The High Court agreed and awarded her £45 million. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, and the wife appealed to the Supreme Court. We previously covered this Court of Appeal case last year.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The key question was whether the £80 million had become matrimonial property subject to the sharing principle.

The Court answered no, and went further, affirming that:

“The sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property.”

Unless an asset was acquired as part of the marital partnership, or unless both parties treated it as shared over time, it falls outside the sharing principle.

In this case, the husband’s transfer was part of a tax-saving scheme, intended to benefit their children, not the wife. There was no evidence that either party had treated the £80 million as part of the shared marital estate.

Why does this matter?

This marks a significant moment in the development of modern family law. Until now, the lower courts had left room for argument that non-matrimonial assets — such as inheritances or pre-marital wealth — might be shared in exceptional cases.

The Supreme Court has now drawn a clear line:

Matrimonial property, earned or generated during the marriage, is subject to sharing.
Non-matrimonial property, pre-marital wealth, gifts, or inheritance is not, unless the parties clearly treated it as shared over time.

This significantly narrows the scope for a spouse to claim against separate property in divorce proceedings.

What is “matrimonialisation”?

The concept of matrimonialisation — turning separate property into shared marital property — still exists, but the Court made clear it must be based on substance, not form.

The test is:

Did the parties treat the asset as shared over time, not just in title, but in intention and use?

A bare transfer of title, as in this case, is insufficient on its own. There must be clear evidence that both parties considered the asset part of the marital pot.

In Standish, the £80 million remained separate in substance and intention. No trust was ever set up, and the transfer was tax-driven, not an expression of shared intent.

What about fairness?

While the wife in Standish initially received £45 million, the Court of Appeal reduced her award to £25 million. This was based on a narrower definition of matrimonial property. The Supreme Court upheld that outcome.

However, the justices reaffirmed that the courts still retain tools under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Where one spouse has unmet financial needs, or has given up career opportunities, the court may make provision through the needs or compensation principles. But the sharing principle must be reserved for property generated through the joint efforts of the marriage.

Key takeaways

This decision reshapes the landscape for financial remedy cases, particularly where significant pre-marital or inherited wealth is involved. Here’s what separating spouses and their advisers need to know:

1. Matrimonial property is for sharing.

If it was built up during the marriage, it will usually be divided equally.

2. Non-matrimonial property is not automatically in the pot.

Assets brought into the marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance generally remain separate, unless clearly treated as shared over time.

3. Transfers between spouses do not automatically convert property.

A tax-motivated gift will remain separate in law unless there is a mutual intention to treat it as jointly owned.

4. Fairness and financial need remain central to the court’s discretion.

A financially weaker spouse may still have a claim, but not through the sharing principle alone.

This case may mark the end of any remaining ambiguity about what qualifies as matrimonial property in English law. Going forward, separating spouses should have a sharper understanding of what is (and isn’t) up for division. The line between joint and separate property is now clearer — and that clarity must inform both negotiation and expectation.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Important Immigration Rules Update: Afghan Scheme Closed & Major Changes to the Skilled Worker Route Announced

Today, the Home Office published a new Statement of Changes HC 997 to the Immigration Rules with significant developments that merit urgent attention. Keep reading to find out more about the latest immigration rules update.

Closure of Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Effective from 3:00 p.m. today, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) has been closed with immediate effect, without any explanation or transitional arrangements. This abrupt closure may have serious implications for those seeking protection or relocation under the scheme.

Substantial Changes to the Skilled Worker Route Effective 22 July 2025

The Statement of Changes also sets out major amendments to the Skilled Worker route, which will take effect from 22 July 2025. Any applications submitted before this date will continue to be assessed under the current rules.

We have summarised the key upcoming changes to the Skilled Worker route below:

Increase in Skill and Salary Thresholds

As anticipated in the immigration white paper published in May 2025, the skills threshold will revert to RQF Level 6. The Home Office’s explanatory memorandum indicates that approximately 180 roles will no longer qualify for sponsorship. However, today’s official press release contradicts this, suggesting that 111 occupations will be removed from the list of eligible roles.

While transitional arrangements will be available for those already in roles below RQF Level 6, the Home Office has confirmed that such provisions are temporary and “will be reviewed in due course.”

In addition, salary thresholds will apply to the Skilled Worker, Global Business Mobility and Scale-up routes.

For instance, the minimum salary threshold for the Skilled Worker route will rise from £38,700 to £41,700 per annum. For new entrants, the minimum salary will increase from £30,960 to £33,400.

Notably, no transitional arrangements will be offered for these salary increases. Individuals already on these routes must meet the new thresholds at the time of their next application.

Expansion of the Immigration Salary List & Introduction of a Temporary Shortage List

Two shortage occupation lists will be introduced, based on reviews of the Migration Advisory Committee, the Department for Business and Trade, and HM Treasury:

Expanded Immigration Salary List; and
Temporary Shortage List, targeting occupations critical to the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy (to be phased out by the end of 2026 or sooner).

Importantly, new applicants under these lists will not be permitted to bring dependants, though those already on the Skilled Worker route will retain this right.

Care Worker Route Closed to Overseas Applicants

From 22 July 2025, care workers and senior care workers (SOC codes 6135 and 6136) will no longer be eligible to apply for entry clearance from abroad. Sponsors must instead focus on recruiting individuals already in the UK under the Skilled Worker route.

However, a transitional period until 22 July 2028 will apply to in-country applications made by those who are already employed by a licensed healthcare sponsor.

Expected Future Changes

The Home Office has also confirmed that the following changes will be introduced before the end of 2025:

Changes to the Immigration Skills Charge;
An increase in the English language threshold; and
A new “family policy framework”.

Further measures affecting asylum and border control are also expected to be announced later in the year.

Conclusion

This latest Statement of Changes comes just one week after a separate update to the Immigration Rules, underscoring the pace and unpredictability of the current immigration policy landscape. The clear direction of travel suggests a continued focus on reducing net migration by significantly tightening the eligibility criteria for “lower-skilled” roles under the Skilled Worker route.

We strongly advise any prospective applicants or sponsors to seek legal advice and take timely action to submit applications before 22 July 2025, wherever possible, to benefit from the current rules.

If you have any questions regarding how these changes may affect you or your organisation, please do not hesitate to contact our team today.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Security for Costs in UK Litigation: What International Businesses Need to Know

In UK litigation, a defendant can apply for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs — a financial guarantee to cover the defendant’s legal costs if the claim fails. This is especially relevant for international claimants, including those based in China.

When Can Security for Costs Be Ordered?

A UK court may order security if:

The claimant is based outside the UK.
There are concerns the claimant cannot or will not pay the defendant’s costs if ordered.
The claimant appears to be avoiding enforcement (e.g. hiding assets).
The court finds it just and fair to do so.

How Much Security and How to Provide It

The amount depends on the estimated costs the defendant may recover. Security can be provided by:

Paying into court,
Providing a bank guarantee, or
An undertaking from a third party.

Failure to provide security may result in the claim being paused or struck out.

Advice for International Clients

Be prepared: Understand the potential for a security for costs application.
Demonstrate financial standing early, if needed.
Seek early legal advice to navigate UK court procedures confidently.

Conclusion

Security for costs is a common and powerful tool in UK litigation, especially in cases involving international claimants. Understanding how it works can help international businesses protect their position and plan effectively.

Our firm has extensive experience advising international, but particularly Chinese clients in UK legal disputes. If you would like to discuss how security for costs could affect your case, please contact our team for expert guidance.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Have a question? Our friendly and experienced team are here to help.

Subscribe to our newsletter

We post weekly articles covering a variety of topics, including immigration, property, and more, so subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.