Good afternoon and welcome everybody. My name's after my mood and I'm taking you through this session through data law where we're looking at cohabitation and unmarried family disputes how to tackle the issues. As you know, that I'm going through a number of aspects with you in terms of dealing with cohabitation disputes. Last time I spend some time going through with you the position with the benefit of cohabitation contracts and agreements and I spent some time looking at some of the disputes that we often find ourselves helping clients with whether the property is in sole ownership or in joint ownership, would spend some time looking at the law relating to trusts with Georgian trust, conservative trusts and estoppel in so far as that's concerned. So we spent some time going through that today. Then what I'll be doing is developing this concept somewhat further by looking at some other case law with you. And I also want to look at a position with how a lot of enticing which Schedule one Children at claims as well. And then the next couple of sessions, I'll be spending some time going through with you the position with the procedure going forward as always, then I've referred to the copyright acknowledgement and we're looking at this as of october 2021. So in what other family situations then has the concept of a stop being used. So that's what we've got to be thinking about and using sort of concept proprietary stopper. You remember last time I spoke about the fact that sometimes, but not always this could be where somebody has been misled into believing something that's not the R. S. So the man may have misled delayed into believing that the house was hers as well, even though it's putting his name. But she was misled into believing that given they were in a relationship and cohabiting that she believes that the property was also hers as well in that situation. And then she's relied upon that. She's suffered a detriment on that basis by relying upon that. But as we said, proprietary stop please are always based on being misled as I'll take you through shortly. And this is where therefore we need to look at some of the other cases and there's been a number of cases involving farming matters in particular, where it hasn't necessarily been that level of dishonesty in that regard. Davis and another was earlier example of that in 2016, just a quarter of your decision, we're here. The daughter successfully brought a proprietary estoppel claim against her parents, for example. So, so that was possible and I'll take you through some of the elements of the requirements of that very shortly. There was then another case involving roger moore roger morgan Stephen moore and uh tell Valley contracting LTD a few years ago, this was a chance for division and again, like so many of these cases, you'll find there are farming businesses which, which people will often be litigation and this particular farming business was one where the, the family had in fact had this farming business for four generations, in fact, which had been run by the moore family and it be run as a partnership by the claim and his father and a defendant. And then there was a dispute over the position of the equity of the farming business uh in that regard. There were several houses that they were disputing over and the claimant here uh said just like so many of these cases, the claimant was arguing that he had actually worked on the under farming business since his childhood. And you're seeing, you'll see that this is actually common feature in many of these cases. Later, I'm going to take you to the guest and guest case to have a field case. You find so many of these cases the same arguments are being run where the claimant is saying that he or she has been working on the farm since their childhood from when they left school and here again, he was saying the same initially at weekends, evenings and in school and college holidays and in full time and then he ran from a long thereafter. So the court referred to Davis and Davis case in terms of the principles of actually stop hole. The idea of first and foremost having to be able to be satisfied that they were reassurances, there were representations the person and relied upon those it was conscionable for them to do so. And Equity would then look at fairness, in terms of then giving relief in that regard, and the court, he was satisfied that the claimant was promised the farm in the business. The evidence was compelling. The evidence was convincing, promises were more than just assumptions about what might happen. There were very clear promises about want person would be getting in the circumstances don't therefore, on that basis. The application was was successful and in fact, it claimed had established you don't hide to an equitable interest in the father's share in the farm and a farming game assets in that regard, as well as to share of the company, cash profits and long account. So you can see can be very wide in terms of the actual chattels that the person will then potentially be able to then be able to get going forward in that regard. One of the other things I wanted to discuss with you at this stage is this because we're looking at cohabitation and because we're often looking at situations where sometimes people will have reached some kind of an agreement and it may not have been perfected. For example, you may have seen lawyers, they may have tried to agree a way forward, but it wasn't far that court in the form of a timeline order, for example, then how far will the court actually going so far as giving some recognition to that agreement that they reached and this is really where the case of alien Robson comes into play the 2016 decisions. So this was a case where by Mr really brought his own property, was putting his soul name. And he had a partner, Miss Robson. You made no contribution towards this to Children and they used to fell out and Mr lee wanted MS Robinson then to vacate. She refused, which then later led to her pursuing a claim for possession. She claimed that she had a beneficial interest in the property based upon her contributions to the other. The other dispute over that, to try to agree between themselves, MS Robson claimed that the segment discussions came to nothing because her argument was, I'll agree to nothing less than equal share because that's the base upon which she said, that was the right proper and equitable. But then what happened is some years later than Mr Ely then decided to bring an action For decorative relief as to their shares in their respective beneficial interest in the property. And he also saw in order for sale under section 14 of Tialata on the basis that he sought done to disposal of property in that regard and his claim. He claimed that both him Miss Robson had in fact reached an agreement on terms set out in the letters before between solicitors some years previously. And this is where the court then took to view And if you look at pages 41 to 40 three other judgments, of course, took the view that in fact there was an all agreement that they reached and the court was satisfied that they would regard that as being binding, and that's because they both understood terms of what they had agreed to sort of off understood and intended. That agreement should be relied upon and it was to be acted upon in that regard. So therefore there was this common intention between the two of them as to the extent of the respective interest in the property. Mr really did actually activities detrimental reliance upon that. Okay, so, Mr really held the property, the court decided on a constructive trust for both of them for both himself and also of him robson's interest, and it was limited to a declaration that the judge made and therefore be unconscionable. It with an approach would be inappropriate for MS MS Hobson to go behind that in that regard. Okay, very useful case. And like I say, many of these cases have involved farming businesses and there was This case of Dobson Griffey a few years ago in 2018, and it's a very good case handed down by Judge Paul Matthews and what this emphasis is is procedurally, how difficult it can sometimes be as as if you're acting for the climate to be able to demonstrate the various elements of an historical case, and you can see here how it was incredibly difficult. So, this was a case, we'll buy the lady in this claim, she brought a claim for a share in the process of sale of the property, which was a farm and she relied upon two principles. She relied first and foremost on the doctrine of constructive trust and I was an alternative. She relied upon proprietary stop us. In the first instance, she said, look, there was a common intention between her and her people have done partner that they were too quietest farming business, which was going to be a joint home from the two of them. And then she based on that suffered a detriment. And in the alternative, she's relied upon probably stop doing that. She said that he had made representations to her and it was fair, necessary and appropriate for her to rely upon this representation, that she would be in touch to share the beneficial interest in the property and she suffered a detriment. So she relied upon that as a as as an alternative course of action. So this farm was purchased in a soul name of the defendants for her then former partner with the mortgage. They fell out some five years later and it was her case. It was the lady's case in under circumstances here that before the property was purchased, there was an agreement she claimed as to their respective rights in relation to it and she claimed that she had enacted to her detriment in relation to some of the work she did on the property in terms of innovation and significant improvement of property. In fact, the court refused her application. The court was satisfied that, yes, there were discussions between the two of them about moving in together and what sort of property may have, but it was hypothetical, and it was very limited in that regard. And they were simply comparing aspirations, exploring really whether or not the two of them were compatible and really whether you want to share their lives together or not, there were no serious discussions, unlike David and David's line a case or a roger moore case that I mentioned. There was no serious discussions between them. It was more discussions which were more comparing aspirations than anything else. And therefore on that basis, the court did not uphold her claim. Now, this case also emphasizes how important he is any illness is. Of course, the claimant to establish on a balance of probabilities the case, the standard proof is upon the claimant, not for the defendant to disprove. And one has to show that on a balance of probabilities are more likely than not. And here on the facts. The court did not feel that there was sufficient aspirations. For example, one of the arguments that she ran was that they were in a particular part in the country, they were looking at the particular land they were looking to purchase and they claimed that they actually sat outside a pub and they were talking about this and so forth, and they were having discussions, but there was no evidence to back it up. There was no evidence to show that they had actually been there. And we're even spending time in that area at that material time. So you can see how important it is to be able to demonstrate your for the applicant the necessity to show that those discussions firstly had taken place. And secondly, that there were serious significant discussions and not just aspirations, but she was unsuccessful on the facts here. Now, that brings me onto this concept of equitable accounting. And this is based on this case of Davis as trustee in bankruptcy. In Jackson and Jackson, in this case, what it does, it puts together for us the notion of understanding the difference between equitable accounting, an occupation, rent. And as you'll appreciate this is a concept which we will often also have, which comes into play when we were dealing with these matters relating to cohabiting or formally cohabiting couples and in particular this case. In fact, even though they looked at these concepts of electoral accounting and occupation went, in fact, he had a couple were married. So the issue was about principles of both of these in the situation when the property was sold, which had been purchased uh through the T. R. One to transfer form on trust for husband and wife as joint tenants. And essentially just put this case into context. What happened by way of background was this it was a case where by husband and wife, they they decided not to live with each other. The wife, I was living with the Children in this property which was in her soul name, husband wasn't contributing towards the mortgage. It was an interest only mortgage, quite substantial mortgage actually had he wasn't contributing towards that. And later what happened is they did in fact have even though the property was in her name, there was a declaration, uh huh grown up in the trustee which in fact it give her husband 50% towards a beneficial process here in the court query why they had signed us where uh effectively he wasn't paying towards this. The wife was and yet he had 50% entitlement to this. But nonetheless, the court did accept that had been signed and wife did understand implications of it and she had signed this so later when they fell out of the wife did try and argue against the enforceability of your trust, The the the fact that he should not be getting 50%. But in fact the court said, look, you signed this, you understood implications of it and the absence of fraud or mistake, otherwise it would be binding. So it was hard for her to get out of atrocity in that regard. But then the next kind of issue that this case very much looked at is what would happen in a situation such as this whereby even though the house was in the lady's name, she did fall into financial difficulties. And this is what her husband then did say look what I can assist with that. So he effectively was going to be providing alone and the way he did that is even mortgaged the property to enable we got more cheese property with Peter and taking out a loan so that he can then give that survive to paid towards the interest only mortgage that she was paying to avoid repossession. So he did that. But by doing that it was made very clear to him that the property that the wife had in his whole name had to now been point in joint names and that's because he was paying a substantial amount towards that by way of a loan and a building society wanted to ensure that day the interest of security was preserved. And the only way to do that was to make sure the property was in his name is Anwar Sadat. He knew if you renege on the repayments you could potentially lose the property as well. The property has now put in joint names. And the difficulty then there after about five or so years later is the husband now going to financial difficulties. So that in fact what happened is he got into financial difficulties, he couldn't repay he's he's share of the contributions towards the property that he was living in. And this is where he became bankrupt, trustee in bankruptcy. Of course, then has the husbands assets chatter was placed in the trustee. And then of course they go against half the house because remember this house that the wife is living in with the Children is now owned by husband as well. Saudi trustee goes against the property, goes against that property and seeks 50% of that. And that's where the issue of reputable accounting comes into play. Because the wife here argued that in a situation like this, um what should happen in terms of the concept of equitable accounting so that can she and should she get the lion's share based on the fact that she was making the contributions and that's what the court very much looked at. Well, in terms of actual accounting, many of you will know this is where actual accounting has been used, where as in this case if she's been paying the mortgage and he hasn't, which has effectively defended of repossession in those circumstances. And the concept of course, be usefully and appropriately used in those circumstances to enable One of them then to get more than 50%. But the argument that the trustee run here was that the concept should not be utilized in this situation in concept delectable accounting cause she was merely paying towards the interest element of the mortgage and not the capital. But in fact his lordship took a different view of his lordship doesn't matter because the reality is by paying the interest only she was still preventing obviously from the property from being repossessed. So therefore they did give weight to actual accounting be used in her favor and therefore she got effectively more than 50% of the process of that property, which meant that the trustee then was in touch with less than 50% when it came to acquiring that purpose and then paying the husband's creditors. But then the trustee around the argument of occupation event. Now many of you will be aware that the concept of occupational rent is just this is where side of properties, how jointly say one of them is excluded from the family home. That could be an hour straw. There could be an exclusion order, that person and of course is that excluded from the property and therefore is not able to continue to occupy and they're having to live ours were able to pay rent or mortgage otherwise and therefore you effectively allowing them to claim the concept of occupation rent because they have been excluded from their entitlement to continue to occupy that property. So that's where our concept of occupation event comes in and therefore that may Give them potentially more than 50%. But the issue here is, can that be used in situations such as this one, where there was bankruptcy. So effectively the husband had become bankrupt. Candor concept of occupation went to be used in case of bankruptcy. And the simple answer is yes, it can be and the court will allow it to be used if appropriate, in those circumstances. But the issue here was this, did the trustee be able to satisfy the basis upon which occupation rent? It can be used normally would be where somebody's as did or exclude from the home. Therefore they have they have left the property because they've been ordered to or it could be where the home situation maybe so untenable that they decided to leave of their own accord because it's just so intense in that family home, for example, that really they feel that they need to move out and then they are claiming the occupation went well here. It was none of those here. The husband had taken a a decision, our concerted uh a considered decision to not live in the house of the wife and in fact, right from the outset he hadn't been living with. So therefore, because of that, it didn't satisfy the realms of when occupation event could be utilized in that case. And therefore, a trustee was unsuccessful and so far successfully argued that the matter of fact of this case was that the wife could and did successfully use the concept of A double accounting, which meant that she got more than 50%. The concept of occupation went, the trustee was unsuccessful on and therefore ultimately, when it came to the sale proceeds. When this property was then to be sold, the wife would end up getting more than 50% given the actual counting argument And therefore there would be less than 50% left available for a trustee in the circumstances. You can see it's a really, really interesting case which actually points together those concepts very well. Now, as I mentioned earlier when you are dealing with cohabitation cases and there have been other case as well which particularly have been the farming line of cases such as the harbor field case for example was an example of this and this was one whereby just like many of these cases, Davis and Davis the volume or case to have a field and shortly and look at our guest and guest case. Many of these are where the claimant is the is the adult child of the of the defendant or diseased in these circumstances. And they are basically claiming proprietary estoppel. And this was one of those cases, that sort of habit field case was one of those with a claim. It was one of four Children of the defendant and her late husband who had slightly passed away and the claim related to farm which was held by the defendant Mother and her late husband taught Lakeridge was some 220 acres. So you can see quite a substantial area of land and a total land buildings including a farmhouse was in the regional about 2.5 million. So you can see quite a substantial uh value there. And the climate then, was the daughter, the adult daughter of the defendant, mother and deceased like husband, where she saw the whole farm or such lesser share of it as the court saw fit. And she brought her claim to alternative cause of action. Bye. She brought an action first and foremost on the proprietary stop. Oh, on the basis that she claimed that her dad had her late father in those circumstances made reassurances to her, which she relied upon is fair and reasonable for her to do so. And she then softer detriment. But the alternative, he instead brought an action under the inheritance provisions for family dependent sector 19 5 against the deceased father's a state on the basis that she claimed that of course, she was an adult child of the disease and therefore she could bring a place an action under section 11 C of the 75 act on the basis that she was a child of the disease. But that was a fallback claim had she, if she was not going to be successful, um dia de estoppel application. Now, the court did say that on the facts, when the court heard from the claimant, in terms of various representations that she claimed her father has made had made to her over that period of time, her ladyship did say that these were not just mere aspirations. These were not just simply statements of wanting what the father was intending. These were very clear representations as to the fact that his daughter would be able to under farming business, a majority of this would be going to her and he intended for her to their forethought herself into the farming business over the years. And she had been touched this. So, the court did feel that these representations were clear enough to set out his intentions in that regard. And this is when a detriment came into play again. So you can see this mirrors very much the other cases that I've just mentioned, the claimants work on a farm over the years. What was this? The court took the view that it was a sufficient detriment. In many respects, the acts of detriment, including these. He worked very long hours for low pay. She had very few holidays that she took. A person employed in arms land transaction would simply not have put in the hours that she did, nor would they have worked nor accepted the pain that she was paid nor accepted a number of holidays she took. It was not the case of assurances. So there was low paid, a very few holidays. She worked very long hours because the idea was that because in her mind, she believed that this was a land which she, if ultimately, the farm has the farmland was one she was going to get and of course, it was her in her interest and putting hours in and therefore to make those massive sacrifices because she would then be benefiting in in years to come. It never occurred to her to leave and go elsewhere, largely down to reassurances. She was obviously very experienced. You could very easily gone elsewhere and then sort four payment from elsewhere. She could have set up us up which is designed to not do that based on these reassurances. So therefore on that basis, the core was satisfied that the hallmarks are gonna stop playing were made. And therefore she didn't in fact, that more approximating 1,170,000, which was a lot more than she would have got. Had she not been successful, it would have been divided equally, possibly four way between her and the other three siblings. So she would have got certainly about, well, certainly at least less less than half of that. So that's where the difference is. And I like to say, there was another case in the case of guessed and guessed. This was a later decision. And again, it's very, very similar decision. This was the Sundays Time, age 50 to the adult son who brought claim against his parents related to family farm and the family business. And again, it's very, very similar to the field line of authority. So he claimed the adult son here claimed that he had left the farm About three years previously. He fell out with his parents, they in fact disowned and they disinherited them from the world that the father had made and he hadn't brought an action under proprietary estoppel. And he claimed that again, many, many years previously, his father and mother had made reassurances to him that he would inherit the farm that was substantial part of it. And therefore based on that. He said that he has devoted his entire working life towards this for very long nor financial gain during that time. Very long hours. Again, very few holidays, very long hours for very little pay because again, the thinking was that he would ultimately be taken this He worked full time at the farm when he left school at 16 claimed that he helped her farm tossed to his childhood and then basically had been left very little thereafter. And the court again, was satisfied. The statements were clear enough to imagine assurance that he would inherit a sub sufficient at stake in the farm too carried up forward, sort of caught once again, was satisfied that the matters upon which he relied upon support expectation based upon this parental assurance rather than any kind of misplaced assumption on his part in case the defendant was arguing that this was misplaced. He misread the signals, the science. We had no intention to give him this, but there wasn't any evidence to support that. So you can see the thinking behind behind these tell attractions is trust of land cases which look very much that these type of matters. Now there's also sometimes alongside Attila attraction. There may well be an application Under Schedule one of their Children. And this is where you may find out either as an alternative or alongside or instead of therefore there may be a claim. And to schedule one of the Children. And this is where there's a range of orders available. This is where you can get lump sum payments. You can get periodical payments. You can of course get transferred the property in appropriate cases as well. This may be particularly necessary. Where so you got man and lady unmarried, not civil partners living together. They've got a child together so they separate and the lady is now claiming to show you one of the Children act for an order that the property is perhaps transferred into her name for the benefit of their child until the Child attains 18 for example. So it's a little bit like the kind of measure Martin type of orders that we would be looking to acquire and assess clients on when you're dealing with some of the financial claims following dissolution of civil partnership or marriage. But these have been used in other situations as well to obtain periodical payments and lump sum payments in that regard. And this could also be you schedule one of the Children could also be used as a top up of and above what the CIA message. Our maintenance service will assess somebody for. As you know there is a maximum uh huh uh weekly amount that their CMS will look at and that's £3000 per week. So if somebody is earning a lot more than that per week, CMS can Only be responsible for the 1st £3,000. Be the amount above that. That's where schedule one of the Children that may be utilizing those situations to maybe see the periodical payments, a lump sum otherwise. And this is where J. NC was an example there of 1999 were by here the lottery winner father was required to pay the child out of his winnings. For example for the benefit of the child. And that's what this comes down to. You do need to if you are pursuing one of these claims, you do need to be able to show that the claim is such that you are seeking it for the benefit of the child in those circumstances. So in terms of the criteria you are looking at amongst other things, then commanding capacity property and other resources not just of the claimant, the applicant but also the child. So you need to look at what resources as a child have for example and any other parent. Both. Now in the future you've got to look at the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities. Both now in the future you gotta look at the financial needs of the child that comes into play as well. one has to look at the income earning capacity, property and other financial resource of the child, any physical mental disability of the child and how the child was educated or expected educated or trained. So some of these cases you may find that the parent is applying for the other parent to provide them with sufficient money is by with periodical payments. A lump sum to cover the private school fees. For example if that was how the child was being educated or expected to be educated for example. So therefore one looks at that and what you find with these applications is that sometimes you may find that the applicant in these circumstances is unable to be able to meet the funds which the lawyer needs to be able to pursue this particularly not going to be eligible for public funding. As you know this is where the last ball to legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders act 2012 requirements need to be matt and if they do not have evidence of domestic violence or these situations even though they may satisfy the means then this is where they will not be able to secure public funding to be able to pursue this. And that's where the legal costs holders come into place that some of you will be familiar. This section 22's a day orders that can be made available in this regard and a case on that was the case of B. C. And D. E. D. Is 2016 decision where the mother lodged an application on behalf of a child and to schedule one of the Children and child was eight years of age. And she also saw a lump sum for legal costs of some £67,000 and a further amount for perspective legal costs. And this is what the court did say that one needs to ensure that these equality of arms. So they wanted to make sure that both mother as their public here and the father was the respondent had equality of arms and equal justice and here without appropriately costs. A solicitor may then feel that they feel somewhat constrained into taking these steps exploring alternative methods and therefore to give her quality of arms. Court said that they would make the order allowing the lady in these circumstances to have to sum of £212 given to 200 and £12,000 rather given to a cover her current and also her future legal costs in that regard. And therefore such an order was granted in the in the circumstances. Now there's been a recent decision which has looked at the use of Schedule one of the Children, this is the case, we see a child, this was a case hand done by Lord Justice Mumby sitting as a judge of the High Court And interestingly, what this case looks at is the is the issue of the court's jurisdiction to hear the application of maintenance pursuant to schedule one of the Children. Where there had been earlier proceedings issued by the father in Monaco. The smallest, a second smallest country in the world, on the northern coast of the Mediterranean senior France. So this was mother's Application on the Schedule one the father and all the logical scenes in Monaco. So the chronology was this. She lodged her application under Schedule one On 26 November 20 19. So she lost then. But the father had actually already lodged an application in Monaco Five days before, in fact on 21 November. So therefore the big question was which one takes priority here? And that's what we need to call looking at. So did the court even have an English Court even have jurisdiction to hear the mother's schedule one application which was issued later? Well, as you all know, because of the changes that we've all had as a result of leaving europe, how has Brexit and impacted upon this sort of course, satisfied that despite the UK's exit from the EU, the issue of jurisdiction was still, They said governed by the maintenance regulation. He's seen number 4 2000 and nine. And the father was arguing that the mother's application should in fact be stayed. Her application here in England should be stayed. Monica is not a member of the EU. But the father did argue that the maintenance regulation Number 4 2000 and one was to have effectively a reflexive effect so that it should be applied as if Monica was a member state of the EU in that regard. So he argued that because he had launched his application there first in time than english course should be banned to decline jurisdiction. So effectively he was he was arguing the first one in time should apply in that regard. So that was his argument. But in fact, court took a different view on that today. Said, well, actually, article three B of the Maintenance Regulation of # 4 2009 provides in matters relating to maintenance obligations. Member States jurisdiction lies with the court for the place where the creditor is a ritually residents. So it really comes into play in terms of issue of habitual residence. And this is where a paragraph 19 in particular, his lordship referred to the previous judgment and billions and billions. Example where it was set interpreting the rules on jurisdiction here. The best interests of a child will prevail. And the applicant bring the action before any court where jurisdiction can be established. So, the Maintenance Regulation does in fact, his lordship said, give priority to the applicants choice and choice of forum in that regard. And therefore they are able to effectively change Tuesday applicable law. So it's not going to be necessarily the first one in time. It's a question of choice based on jurisdiction sort of issue here. The court said that this has not been fettered, this hasn't been changed as a result of our exit from the EU. And the doctrine of forum non convenience has no place in the context of maintenance case and the maintenance regulation. So the idea that the first one in time in that regard. So with that in mind, the court then needs to see of course the wife wanted to pursue her, the other one to pursue her claim here in England, even though it was launched after the father had in the circumstances. So for the english course and to have jurisdiction to do so, she would have to show that the child is opportunity resident in England Wales According to have jurisdiction. So as 26 November 2019, the court had to ask themselves whether jurisdiction had in fact been established and the court did say that mothers returned to England was carefully planned. She'd already put arrangements in place for accommodation, schooling for the child. The child had a significant connection previously anyway to England and they were registered with a GP and dentists. As you know, those are some of the things that the courts would then look at in looking to see whether or not they are habitually resident here. So that was as of 26th November 2019. Which the data which mother lodged the application And by 20 September 20 19, the child was already attending ballet and music lessons. So the court was satisfied actually By 26 November there had already been that a sufficient degree of integration to be up to demonstrate that the english courts had jurisdiction. So therefore a child did have A sufficient degree of integration. At the point at which the application was lodged on 26 November 2019. You can see it's a really useful case which looks at the use of schedule on it. And that got particularly we got the jurisdiction issues that thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope that has been a useful session for you. So the next couple of sessions I'm going to be spending more looking at the procedural elements so when you are pursuing both to larger and schedule one claims of the Children. So I'll be going through that with you and piecing together some of the key developments in so far as the procedure is concerned to assist you with that I hope this has been a useful session free and always thank you for listening and I speak to you very soon. Thank you very much indeed. Buy from out
Webinar
Slides
3062 Users
171 Courses
157 Reviews
