fs suing


A 41-year old solicitor has failed in his court bid to stop his wealthy parents reducing his allowance.

In the "unprecedented" case, the lawyer claimed that his parents, who live together in Dubai, breached his human rights and other legislation when they "significantly reduced" his allowance and stopped paying the utility bills for the central London flat they own and let him occupy.

"The relationship between the applicant and his parents, in particular, it would appear, his father, has deteriorated and the financial support they are prepared to offer has significantly reduced", said the judge.

Describing the case as "most unusual" Sir James Munby said in his judgment that he suspected the initial reaction of most experienced family lawyers would be "a robust disbelief that there is even arguable substance to any of it".

"Financial disputes between parents and their financially dependent adult children have been with us for ever", said the judge, "Yet it is a striking fact that, notwithstanding the prevalence of these disputes, there is no trace of them ever having been litigated".

The man, named only as 'FS' in the judgment, has a history degree and a masters in tax at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. But he's been unemployed for several years, and claimed that his parents had nurtured a dependency on them, "with the consequence that he is, so it is said, now completely dependent on them", said the judge.

Tim Amos QC argued that his client also suffered from "various difficulties and mental health disabilities", although the judge said the "true extent" of FS's afflictions "is not clear".

In one line of attack, he claimed that reducing the middle-aged solicitor's allowance breached FS's right to life under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1988. The parents' plan was "one of 'starving' him into submission, not just metaphorically in intent but also literally in effect", claimed the barrister. Sir James called the argument "risible".

Amos QC also argued that FS's right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act would be breached if his parents were allowed to stop paying his utility bills for the flat they had let FS live in rent-free for 20 years.

Amos claimed the flat "represents the only bulwark between [FS] and very real possible destitution", and was also FS's "metaphorical umbilical cord to his family", even when "the human relations are strained".

The nature of the case forced Amos QC into an uncanny impression of a wheedling teenager, arguing that FS's parents were being asked "to put their hands in their pockets" and had plenty of money available.

"Maybe", responded Sir James, "but 'available' here has the connotation of 'willing to make available', and that, it seems, they are not".

"I have to say that nothing I have yet heard begins to persuade me that the applicant has any case", said the judge, speaking on behalf of parents everywhere.

Sir James dismissed his applications and refused permission to appeal. He also ordered FS to pay his parents' costs of £57,000. "The fact is that an adult son has chosen to make financial claims against his parents. In that endeavour he has utterly failed. There is no reason at all why he should not suffer the consequences", said the judge.

Rejecting FS's application for an extension of time, the judge made his opinion of FS clear: "He has been treated with considerable indulgence; if he wants further indulgence, he must seek it in another place". 

FS appears to have been a nightmare client. Sir James added a postscript to his judgment noting that he received an email from Amos QC two days after circulating his draft judgment which explained that "My client expressly and specifically instructs me to send to you his Invitation to reconsider and change your judgment".

In the accompanying note "running to some 15 closely spaced pages",  FS informed Sir James that his judgment contained "clear and obvious errors of law that need to be immediately corrected" in order to avoid handing down a ruling that was "fundamentally wrong".

After dealing with that, Sir James said he was "staggered" to receive a further email from Amos QC attempting to raise new points on behalf of FS. "His further attempts to expand and reopen the argument are an abuse of process. Enough is enough. There must be an end to this", said the judge*.

FS did not respond to a request for comment.

*Sir James enjoyed himself, though, taking time out in his judgment to embark on a reverie about how "Seemingly new problems are far from new" which took in hiking, eloping and Jihad:

"Wardship judges have been familiar down the ages with the impressionable youngster embarking upon some unsuitable relationship or dangerous cause. 'Hot pursuit' in the days of Lord Eldon LC conjures up the image of the coach and four labouring up Shap Fell taking the young heiress and her unsuitable paramour to the Scottish border and the blacksmith's forge at Gretna Green. Today it more probably conjures up the image of the potential teenage jihadist travelling by aeroplane to the Turkish border en route to join so-called ISIS in war-torn Syria. But we have to remember that the romantic or idealistic call to participate in foreign wars is nothing new: one has only to think of John Cornford who went as a young man, but in law still a minor (technically, in the language of the era, an infant), to fight in the British Battalion of the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War, where he was killed in action the day after his 21st birthday."

Tags
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 02 October 20 08:57

*Frantically checks SRA website for male London solicitors whose initials are "FS" and who qualified c. 2003-2006*

@0857 02 October 20 09:16

That’s not how anonymisation in litigation works. Superinjunctions wouldn’t have been very super if you just had to fill in the blanks. 

Anonymous 02 October 20 10:13

Amazing how he can be disabled at some points and very articulate at other points. 

Not saying he is or is not, just that as a father if I saw capability in a 40 year old son then I would be willing to cut off the pursue strings.

Surrey Solicitor 02 October 20 13:17

Christ I knew there were a lot of [redacted] in the profession but this piece of [redacted] takes the whole packet of biscuits . His Solicitors should be hauled before the SDT for bringing the profession into disrepute

Anonymous 02 October 20 19:00

And what's up with that barrister acting on "instructions" to send letters to the judge after judgment was rendered????

AbsurdinessBrown 04 October 20 15:06

LoL at the QC making further submissions like that afterwards and dressing it up as instructions. What a complete *****.

Not forgetting that many an important common law rule had its beginnings in something really quite petty, this was really quite a significant stretch from the outset.  What next, litigation over who was going to use the holiday home?  Piss off with this American style nonsense.

I find myself hoping the plaintiff's solicitors didn't have money in trust.

George Graham 05 October 20 17:00

The judgement states that he has a "first degree" in history, not a "first class degree."

Anonymous 06 October 20 07:48

how has someone who has apparently been unemployed for several years managed to maintain their status of solicitor?

Anonymous 06 October 20 18:20

ROF, you just broke my heart a bit describing the 41 year old as a "middle-aged solicitor". I now need wine.

Jamie Hamilton 06 October 20 19:29

"The judgement states that he has a "first degree" in history, not a "first class degree.""

Amended, thanks.

Related News