Chattels - should the court bother?

District Judge Stephen Gerlis investigates an area of law that can instill terror in solicitors

Nobody uses the word 'chattel' in normal parlance.

It hasn't been used for years.

It is one of those legal words designed to divide the lawyers from Joe Public that probably has an ancient and mildly interesting provenance.

In ancillary relief matters, its mere mention is guaranteed to raise the hackles of your average district judge as it usually signals a time-wasting and costly exercise known colloquially as 'dividing the spoons'.

The Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA) has sensibly ditched the expression, referring in the 6th edition of the Precedents for Consent Orders to 'contents/ personal belongings'.

The SFLA does recommend that parties try and reach agreement on contents without the need for a court order, anticipating no doubt the uncertainties of a trifling dispute.

Of course, there may be substantial 'chattels' - they could include yachts, aeroplanes or Manchester United season tickets - where the values alone make litigation more attractive or inevitable.

But what of the more trivial claims over household goods which are the usual stuff of county court business? Solicitors beware - ignore 'chattels' at your peril.

In Beswarick v Ripman & Ors [2001] All ER (D) 205 (Apr), the claimant retained the services of the defendant firm of solicitors in her matrimonial proceedings.

However, she was not happy about the way the solicitors looked after her and claimed against them in negligence after they brokered a settlement on her behalf.

One of her complaints was that the solicitors 'failed to act in her best behalf in the recovery of her chattels'.

In order to achieve a speedy settlement, the solicitors had 'unilaterally abandoned' her claim for chattels.

The High Court disapproved and slapped the wrist of the solicitors to the tune of 500 for that part of the claim.

How should the question of chattels be approached? Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is the touchstone for the matters to be taken into consider-ation but there is little guidance elsewhere.

A useful guide as to how 'chattels' should be dealt with comes not from a matrimonial case as such, but Haywood v Haywood (2000) LTL, 2 August Ch D.

Notwithstanding the title of the case, the parties were not married but had lived together as husband and wife for 30 years.

Ms Haywood brought a claim that certain 'chattels' and any proceeds of sale belonged to the parties jointly.

There were 254 items in issue between them.

The parties ran an antiques business together and had appropriated many of the antiques for their own domestic use.

Other domestic items had been purchased from the income generated by their joint business.

The defendant argued that many of the antique items were stock available for sale 'at his sole whim'.

The court rejected that argument.

Indeed, it seems to have approached the matter in a manner that would have found favour with the judges in the ancillary relief cases of Cowan and Lambert.

The court held that both parties had worked to run the business and that the claimant was entitled to an equal share of the fruits of that business.

Therefore, she succeeded in getting a half share in the bulk of the disputed items which the court found were indeed intended for domestic use.

It does not appear that the court went down the tedious route of deciding who should have what, especially where there were 254 items to deal with.

A sensible view would have been to leave it to the parties to sort out instead of running the risk of the wrath of the judge and the lottery of his division.

It is not so easy when the chattel has a cold nose and a tail.

In P v P (2002) LTL, 16 January, District Judge Harper, decided on the 19 January 2001, the 'chattels' in dispute were two dogs.

The husband wanted one of them, the wife wanted the handyman who worked for the family to have both of them.

There was a convoluted background to this.

If the husband took one dog, his new partner would be looking after it which would somehow prevent the wife from visiting it.

The wife was moving to a flat where she was not allowed dogs.

Giving the dogs to the handyman meant that the husband, wife and children could visit the animals.

The children preferred the handyman solution.

In his judgment, one can almost envisage the despair of the judge.

'Arrangements for the dogs should be dealt with by consultation between the members of the family including the children.

Ordinarily the court would not be minded to make any order concerning the ownership of a pet animal.' The court took into account the unusual background and the 'continuing bitterness' between the parties.

The dogs were given to the wife to do with as she wished as the husband's proposal would mean separating two elderly dogs, 'which was not desirable'.

Not a dry eye in the house - I would not be surprised if Disney had bought up the rights to it already.

District Judge Stephen Gerlis sits at Barnet County Court