Peter Jones on John Cornwell

Few practitioners now will recall the origin of Resolution and the debt we all owe to the late John Cornwell.

It was John, who practised in London all those years ago, who decided that Family Law could be practiced by solicitors, barristers and judges in a much less confrontational manner. Until his review Family Law had been treated exactly the same as contentions litigation; not a quarter asked and not a quarter given. The consequence was, of course, that the lawyers created far more problems and animosity between separating couples, and as always litigation was an expensive outing with funds which could and should have been employed for the benefit of the parties and their children diverted into the hands of the lawyers.

The system itself was of no assistance in bringing about a negotiated settlement. “Issue an application” were the words usually employed as soon as instructions were received by the practitioners.

To compound the problems, it was necessary for both parties to file affidavits setting out in appalling detail every issue (in particular behaviour) in an effort to take the moral and legal high ground and place the other spouse at a disadvantage. There was little or no effort to seek a solution – it was litigation first, second and last.

John Cornwell

There would be a first appointment when frequently draconian requests for further and better particulars, often 10-15 pages in length and drafted by counsel (who was also “brought in” at an early stage, thus further increasing costs with the additional requirement for a conference with counsel).

There was little if any encouragement to negotiate; an order for valuations of the matrimonial home was always sought, by one or each party. The husband would seek a high valuation where the wife was in occupation and the wife, if she was endeavouring to remain in the property, would seek a much lower figure.

Notwithstanding the expensive valuations, a judge would invariably exercise the Judgement of Solomon and take the arithmetical middle figure. When valuers were substantially apart and there was no encouragement for them to speak with one another, both would be required to attend court, with the subsequent cost. And, of course, they would be subject to cross-examination.

Business valuations would attract an explosion of costs with the idea of a single joint expert rarely employed.

Criminal court-style evidence in chief and, in particular, cross-examination would leave the parties in tatters. In the event they had not been enemies before the court process, they invariably were when it was finished.

The fractured relationship between the parties would then cascade down onto the children. The result was further litigation. There would often be a welfare report which would set out with extraordinary detail the officers’ visits, but would rarely give any guidance. So one or other of the parties would require the welfare officers’ attendance at court, further increasing the cost and often alienating one or other of the parties as their respective counsel cross-examined the officer. The arguments which flowed were legendary. By way of example: “you never spend the maintenance on the children”; “your boyfriend will not be in the house (my house don’t forget) when the children are there”; “I demand to see them at Christmas/my birthday/my parents birthdays” etc.

We have come a long way since John’s initiative. The attitude now is quite simply to find a solution. Resolution (then the Solicitors Family Law Association) has been and continues to be at the forefront of change and development, and has worked side by side in a unique collaboration with the Family Law Bar Association.

We owe a great debt to John, but perhaps more importantly our clients and their children owe a greater one.

Peter Jones