Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 35.8 MB]
Categories:
Family Law
Human Rights, Civil Liberties & Public Law
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast aims to inform the listener of the current law where documents obtained surreptitiously may be adduced in evidence during ancillary relief proceedings. It encourages the listener to consider the surrounding issues of data protection and legal professional privilege. Further, it deals with the issue of what alternative civil remedies could be sought in these situations.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be up to date with the law on the circumstances in which evidence obtained surreptitiously may be adduced in ancillary relief proceedings;
  • Understand how the law relating to ancillary relief differs from the law on disclosure in other areas, and the reasons behind this distinction;
  • Be aware of the alternative civil remedies that could be sought, such as search orders;
  • Know all of the current, relevant case law on this area of law.
Level:
Beginner Difficulty: 1 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Practical Guide
Sources and References:
  • Human Rights Act 1998;
  • Data Protection Act 1998;
  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
  • Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
  • Computer Misuse Act 1990;
  • Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973;
  • Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244;
  • L v L [2007] 2 FLR 171;
  • T v T, The Times 5 August 1994;
  • Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 8) [1990] 3 All ER 762;
  • English and American Insurance Co Ltd v Herbert Smith & Co [1988] FSR 232;
  • A v B (unreported 31 July 2000, Lloyd J);
  • Whig v Whig [2007] EWHC 1856 (Fam);
  • Jones v University of Warwick [2003] All ER (D) 34;
  • R (on the application of Hafner) v City of Westminster;
  • Magistrates' Court [2008] EWHC 524 (Admin);
  • Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, ECtHR, Series A no. 251-B;
  • Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V;
  • R v P and others [2000] All ER (D) 2260;
  • Campbell v MGN Ltd [2005] UKHL 61;
  • Indicii Salus Ltd (in Receivership) v Chandrasekaran and others [2007] EWHC 406 (Ch);
  • Emanuel v Emanuel [1982] 2 All ER 342;
  • Kepa v Kepa (1983) 4 FLR 515;
  • Burgess v Burgess [1996] 2 FLR 34;
  • Araghchinchi v Araghchinchi [1997] 2 FLR 142;
  • Cliberry v Allan [2002] All ER (D) 281.

This podcast considers the problem of one spouse seeking to use documents in evidence in ancillary relief proceedings that have been obtained surreptitiously. It enquires into whether the courts have a discretionary jurisdiction to exclude such evidence on the ground of fairness, and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 upon this area of law.

Podcast added: 10/7/09 Podcast reviewed: 09/08/10

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-07-25

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com