It was reported on Sunday that a law firm has been criticised for offering a ‘cut price divorce’ to couples after Christmas. The firm is offering a divorce for the sum of £400.00.
The Bishop of Oxford branded this “tacky” and said that couples can do without the encouragement of cut price divorce ‘deals'.
At Hart Brown, we consider that this article begs the question, can a client really expect a first class service as part of such a promotion? A promotion of this nature is unlikely to cover anything concerning the finances of the marriage, and any issues relating to children that may need resolving.
The family team at Hart Brown understand that the breakdown of a marriage can be a difficult time for our clients and we do not feel that such promotions instil confidence that the sensitive issues arising from such a breakdown are being dealt with effectively, and that time would be taken to consider clients’ best interests.
Clients may also feel that they are on a ‘conveyor belt’ and that the service that they are receiving is somewhat impersonal, something that we strive to avoid at Hart Brown.
Do you think that such promotions are a good idea? Let us have your views.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339818/Legal-firm-condemned-tacky-Christmas-divorce-sale.html
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown Family Department
Wednesday 22 December 2010
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Family breakdown on the increase
A report has been published highlighting the increase in the breakdown of the relationships of cohabiting couples with children.
The report states that half of all children born today will see their parents separate before they reach the age of 16 and that unmarried couples account for 59% of family break ups. There are suggestions that couples should be encouraged to marry, thus strengthening the commitment to the relationship and reducing the likelihood of a family breakdown, which in turn would affect the children of such a relationship.
At Hart Brown, we deal with the many issues that can arise concerning children following the breakdown of a relationship and often, such issues can be distressing to all those concerned.
Should more couples be encouraged to marry in order to try to reduce the level of family breakdowns? Let us know what you think.
Article:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336318/Half-children-parents-split-reach-age-16.html
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Family Department, Hart Brown
The report states that half of all children born today will see their parents separate before they reach the age of 16 and that unmarried couples account for 59% of family break ups. There are suggestions that couples should be encouraged to marry, thus strengthening the commitment to the relationship and reducing the likelihood of a family breakdown, which in turn would affect the children of such a relationship.
At Hart Brown, we deal with the many issues that can arise concerning children following the breakdown of a relationship and often, such issues can be distressing to all those concerned.
Should more couples be encouraged to marry in order to try to reduce the level of family breakdowns? Let us know what you think.
Article:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336318/Half-children-parents-split-reach-age-16.html
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Family Department, Hart Brown
Monday 6 December 2010
Your Will - why you should use a solicitor!
In a survey published in the Independent on Sunday last week a figure of 38% was quoted as the increase in claims being made by relatives who felt they had been inadequately provided for under the terms of a will or the intestacy rules (the rules that govern an estate where no will is left).
The increase is quoted as being in the last year and one reason cited is the recession.
It is so important to make sure that when you are making your will you take proper legal advice from a solicitor. There are so many organisations now offering to draft your will you can even buy one off the shelf at a stationers! It is a difficult choice but not one that should be based on cost alone. It is unlikely that you will receive advice regarding such claims from a will writer! Even the suggestion of a claim can create costs far in excess of those that would be required to make a will with a solicitor. This is a prime example of being penny wise and pound foolish!
The increase is quoted as being in the last year and one reason cited is the recession.
It is so important to make sure that when you are making your will you take proper legal advice from a solicitor. There are so many organisations now offering to draft your will you can even buy one off the shelf at a stationers! It is a difficult choice but not one that should be based on cost alone. It is unlikely that you will receive advice regarding such claims from a will writer! Even the suggestion of a claim can create costs far in excess of those that would be required to make a will with a solicitor. This is a prime example of being penny wise and pound foolish!
Wednesday 17 November 2010
Divorce insurance – A good idea?
In the wake of legal aid being cut for divorce and family related matters, it is being reported in the media today that a possible way to make financial provision for a divorce should you require one in the future is to take out an insurance policy that covers the cost of a divorce.
The cost of dealing with a divorce and the associated finances can be high if court proceedings are issued to resolve the finances.
It may be that couples will start to look at other methods of resolving finances, divorce and issues relating to children, such as mediation or collaborative law.
Do you think that the government are right to cut the legal aid budget for family cases? Do you think that taking out insurance policies will put pressure on couples? Do you think that preventative measures, such as insurance policies and pre-nuptial agreements are a good thing?
Will such an insurance policy cover all the possible issues that can arise from a divorce, such as children?
Let us hear your views.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330026/Divorce-insurance-advised-ministers-legal-aid-crackdown-looms.html
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown Family Department
The cost of dealing with a divorce and the associated finances can be high if court proceedings are issued to resolve the finances.
It may be that couples will start to look at other methods of resolving finances, divorce and issues relating to children, such as mediation or collaborative law.
Do you think that the government are right to cut the legal aid budget for family cases? Do you think that taking out insurance policies will put pressure on couples? Do you think that preventative measures, such as insurance policies and pre-nuptial agreements are a good thing?
Will such an insurance policy cover all the possible issues that can arise from a divorce, such as children?
Let us hear your views.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330026/Divorce-insurance-advised-ministers-legal-aid-crackdown-looms.html
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown Family Department
Tuesday 16 November 2010
Prince William to marry Kate Middleton
Today sees the announcement of the marriage of Prince William to his long term girlfriend, Kate Middleton.
The past few weeks have seen much comment and speculation in the media about couples who are planning to marry and whether or not they should consider entering into a pre-nuptial agreement. The recently reported case of Radmacher –v- Granatino highlighted the current status of pre-nuptial agreements and whether they are something that more couples should be considering.
Although not the most romantic discussion to have with your fiancé, it is something that couples should contemplate. One party may have a higher income, or be coming into the marriage with significantly more assets. Additionally, one party may have much greater inheritance prospects. A pre-nuptial agreement could help protect your assets or income.
There are rumours of a high-street department store offering pre-nuptial agreements as part of their wedding packages and it is likely that there will be several DIY versions available in the future. Although this may seem like a cheap way to get a pre-nuptial, in the long run it could be more costly as upon divorce you may end up in court arguing over whether it is ‘fair’ and whether it was entered into correctly. It is far better to seek advice from an expert who you can see face to face and draft a personally tailored pre-nuptial to meet your needs.
Do you think that pre-nuptial agreements are relevant in today’s society? Do you think that Kate and William should consider such an agreement?
Let us have your views.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11765422
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown family department
The past few weeks have seen much comment and speculation in the media about couples who are planning to marry and whether or not they should consider entering into a pre-nuptial agreement. The recently reported case of Radmacher –v- Granatino highlighted the current status of pre-nuptial agreements and whether they are something that more couples should be considering.
Although not the most romantic discussion to have with your fiancé, it is something that couples should contemplate. One party may have a higher income, or be coming into the marriage with significantly more assets. Additionally, one party may have much greater inheritance prospects. A pre-nuptial agreement could help protect your assets or income.
There are rumours of a high-street department store offering pre-nuptial agreements as part of their wedding packages and it is likely that there will be several DIY versions available in the future. Although this may seem like a cheap way to get a pre-nuptial, in the long run it could be more costly as upon divorce you may end up in court arguing over whether it is ‘fair’ and whether it was entered into correctly. It is far better to seek advice from an expert who you can see face to face and draft a personally tailored pre-nuptial to meet your needs.
Do you think that pre-nuptial agreements are relevant in today’s society? Do you think that Kate and William should consider such an agreement?
Let us have your views.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11765422
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown family department
Thursday 11 November 2010
Mental Incapacity
The Daily Telegraph reported on the 10 November that “the number of elderly people with dementia will increase by 70% to more than 1 million in the next 20 years”. The statistic is quoted from the National End of Life Care Intelligence Network, which is an NHS programme. The number of those people who suffer dementia and are unable to look after their own affairs due to mental incapacity is not included. Add to that number those who lose capacity through illness or accident and the figure becomes ever greater.
If anything were to prompt individuals into making provision for the loss of mental capacity through accident or the onset of age, statistics such as these surely must. By putting in place a lasting power of attorney, you are able to appoint someone to look after your affairs should you not be able to do so. You can appoint an attorney to look after your financial affairs and also to assist with decisions relating to your personal welfare.
Everyone should considering making provision for mental incapacity and it is never too early to do so.
We all hope that we do not lose mental capacity but if we do, having made provision is an absolute relief for those who have to pick up the pieces.
Find out more about mental incapacity
Read more about the author of this article: Shaun Parry-Jones
If anything were to prompt individuals into making provision for the loss of mental capacity through accident or the onset of age, statistics such as these surely must. By putting in place a lasting power of attorney, you are able to appoint someone to look after your affairs should you not be able to do so. You can appoint an attorney to look after your financial affairs and also to assist with decisions relating to your personal welfare.
Everyone should considering making provision for mental incapacity and it is never too early to do so.
We all hope that we do not lose mental capacity but if we do, having made provision is an absolute relief for those who have to pick up the pieces.
Find out more about mental incapacity
Read more about the author of this article: Shaun Parry-Jones
Friday 29 October 2010
National Will Writing Week
It is National Write a Will Week this week and, according to sources quoted by the Daily Telegraph, about 30 million people in Britain don’t have a will. That equates to about 70% of the population.
Everyone should have a will and they should have a will that has been written by a solicitor. There are numerous alternative options to using a solicitor to make a will. None of them are at all satisfactory.
It is possible to buy a will making kit or use a will writer. The difficulty in using these options is that the likelihood is that you or the will writer have little or no legal experience. In addition, will writers are unregulated and uninsured.
Another option would be to rely on the rules of intestacy. Those are the rules that are laid down to govern somebody’s estate when they die if they haven’t left a will. The rules very often do not work in a way that you would expect them to.
There is no alternative to having your will drafted by a solicitor that specialises in the field. Badly drawn wills can often cause more trouble than they are worth and, in the long run, can be far more expensive and cause no end of hurt. There is no substitute to getting a properly drafted will put in place.
Read more about Hart Brown
Everyone should have a will and they should have a will that has been written by a solicitor. There are numerous alternative options to using a solicitor to make a will. None of them are at all satisfactory.
It is possible to buy a will making kit or use a will writer. The difficulty in using these options is that the likelihood is that you or the will writer have little or no legal experience. In addition, will writers are unregulated and uninsured.
Another option would be to rely on the rules of intestacy. Those are the rules that are laid down to govern somebody’s estate when they die if they haven’t left a will. The rules very often do not work in a way that you would expect them to.
There is no alternative to having your will drafted by a solicitor that specialises in the field. Badly drawn wills can often cause more trouble than they are worth and, in the long run, can be far more expensive and cause no end of hurt. There is no substitute to getting a properly drafted will put in place.
Read more about Hart Brown
Wednesday 27 October 2010
House prices heading for a fall, surveyors warn
The report does confirm the trend experienced by Hart Brown’s residential property department over the last 2 or 3 months. The number of transactions has reduced with buyers becoming much more circumspect before offering on properties. The first 6 months of 2010 saw activity levels close to those of the heady days of 2007 but this was mainly due to a release of frustration from pent up buyers who had sat on their hands during the worst of the recession.
Once the fears of the public became reality in the form of massive public spending cuts following the election, buyers once again faded away at the same time as a number of sellers put their properties on the market. The political uncertainty at the time of the election saw some sellers holding fire in marketing until after the election which in hindsight can be seen as unwise. Since the election the balance has indeed swung in favour of buyers who, on a supply and demand basis, have more properties to choose from.
Some reports suggest that September’s lending figures show the lowest number of approved mortgages were the lowest for 10 years.
Due to uncertainty over jobs and the medium term concerns over the performance of the property market the % of transactions becoming abortive is higher than for some many months with many sellers who lose buyers selling at a good 5 or 10% less than the original offer.
The rental market is extremely buoyant which is a bad sign for the residential market as potential buyers are moving into temporary accommodation to gauge the market in the hope and now, expectation, of a further drop in prices.
As for the longer term view interest rates hold the key. The timing of any rise in rates will be absolutely key. Any rise ion the next 6 to 9 months would probably kill the market stone dead and cause some house owners huge problems. Coming out of fixed rates or tracker deals into above base rate products would see mortgage payments increase considerably and without pay rises result in many mortgages becoming unaffordable. Fire sales or repossessions would follow. We need to remember that rates came down in huge chunks, 1% and 0.5%, and are likely to go up at a similar rate, especially if inflation keeps running away.
A chill wind will blow over the already fragile residential property market this winter and possibly extend into the middle of 2011
Read the the article here
Read more about Hart Brown's conveyancing department
Article author: David Knapp
Once the fears of the public became reality in the form of massive public spending cuts following the election, buyers once again faded away at the same time as a number of sellers put their properties on the market. The political uncertainty at the time of the election saw some sellers holding fire in marketing until after the election which in hindsight can be seen as unwise. Since the election the balance has indeed swung in favour of buyers who, on a supply and demand basis, have more properties to choose from.
Some reports suggest that September’s lending figures show the lowest number of approved mortgages were the lowest for 10 years.
Due to uncertainty over jobs and the medium term concerns over the performance of the property market the % of transactions becoming abortive is higher than for some many months with many sellers who lose buyers selling at a good 5 or 10% less than the original offer.
The rental market is extremely buoyant which is a bad sign for the residential market as potential buyers are moving into temporary accommodation to gauge the market in the hope and now, expectation, of a further drop in prices.
As for the longer term view interest rates hold the key. The timing of any rise in rates will be absolutely key. Any rise ion the next 6 to 9 months would probably kill the market stone dead and cause some house owners huge problems. Coming out of fixed rates or tracker deals into above base rate products would see mortgage payments increase considerably and without pay rises result in many mortgages becoming unaffordable. Fire sales or repossessions would follow. We need to remember that rates came down in huge chunks, 1% and 0.5%, and are likely to go up at a similar rate, especially if inflation keeps running away.
A chill wind will blow over the already fragile residential property market this winter and possibly extend into the middle of 2011
Read the the article here
Read more about Hart Brown's conveyancing department
Article author: David Knapp
Monday 25 October 2010
Cheryl Cole's malaria battle
Recently in an interview with Piers Morgan, Cheryl Cole disclosed that when she was in intensive care with malaria, she asked her mother to arrange for someone to visit her to help her make her will. Making a will is not the preserve of the older generations. Everyone over the age of 18 should consider making a will. Youngsters often forget that some of the more adventurous activities that they take part in can lead to serious injury or death.
No one really wants to think about such morbid provision. However, an experience such as that of Cheryl Cole focuses the mind! She was fortunate to get through her illness and I hope that Cheryl has now made proper provision for the future rather than leaving it until it is too late.
Find out more about making a will
Find out more about the author of this article.
No one really wants to think about such morbid provision. However, an experience such as that of Cheryl Cole focuses the mind! She was fortunate to get through her illness and I hope that Cheryl has now made proper provision for the future rather than leaving it until it is too late.
Find out more about making a will
Find out more about the author of this article.
Friday 22 October 2010
Pre-nuptial agreements
Yesterday, the long awaited decision in the Radmacher v Granatino case was announced by the Supreme Court, the highest court in England.
The court said that pre-nup agreements should be followed where they had been “freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement”.
Ms Radmacher (whose fortune is estimated to be £100 million) and Mr Granatino had signed a pre-nup stating that neither would make a financial claim against the other in the event of a divorce. However, the agreement did not anticipate children.
Mr Granatino was awarded a sum to pay his debts, a regular child maintenance sum (for when the children stayed with him) and two sums to purchase a house in London and Germany, with the ownership of both properties reverting to Ms Radmacher once the children had grown up. He received no share of his wife’s fortune in accordance with the pre-nup.
However, was this decision fair and would the award have been higher if it had been a woman in Mr Granatino’s position? Let us have your views!
Find out more about Hart Brown's family department
Read more about the Author of this article, Natasha Crocker.
The court said that pre-nup agreements should be followed where they had been “freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement”.
Ms Radmacher (whose fortune is estimated to be £100 million) and Mr Granatino had signed a pre-nup stating that neither would make a financial claim against the other in the event of a divorce. However, the agreement did not anticipate children.
Mr Granatino was awarded a sum to pay his debts, a regular child maintenance sum (for when the children stayed with him) and two sums to purchase a house in London and Germany, with the ownership of both properties reverting to Ms Radmacher once the children had grown up. He received no share of his wife’s fortune in accordance with the pre-nup.
However, was this decision fair and would the award have been higher if it had been a woman in Mr Granatino’s position? Let us have your views!
Find out more about Hart Brown's family department
Read more about the Author of this article, Natasha Crocker.
Wednesday 20 October 2010
Government Spending cuts
We like you, will no doubt discover the full gory impact of today’s expenditure cuts announcement, gradually over the next few days. Such is the detail and nature of these things, that several days after the main headlines are losing their initial impact, news of further implications and ramifications will seep into the public domain.
However the real impact will come some way down the line as the various benefit cuts, tax increases and additional costs (such as the hike in rail fares) start to directly hit your wallet. The vast cocktail of measures makes it very difficult for anyone to quickly assess the precise affect on them. Nevertheless, the coming weekend’s papers and professional economists’ blogs will no doubt make a good stab at quantifying the bad news for a range of ‘case study’ families.
For some of our clients the changes could require a rethink of their f
uture financial plans and using our experience and lifetime cashflow modelling software, we will be able to demonstrate the effect of changes such as increased expenditure and deferring retirement age (increase in State pension age to 66).
We also expect many more people to ask us to help them examine carefully their pension arrangements, particularly those people whose jobs are in jeopardy or whose pension benefits are being diluted. We fully expect that many final salary pension schemes will require increased contributions for lower benefits at a later pension age.
We won’t know for some time whether the medicine the coalition has administered has saved the day or pushed us towards a double-dip recession. Economists seem fairly equally divided on this point. All we can say for now is that we are here for our clients, ready to listen and provide practical advice.
Find out more about Hart Brown's Financial Planning Department
Read more about the author of this article
However the real impact will come some way down the line as the various benefit cuts, tax increases and additional costs (such as the hike in rail fares) start to directly hit your wallet. The vast cocktail of measures makes it very difficult for anyone to quickly assess the precise affect on them. Nevertheless, the coming weekend’s papers and professional economists’ blogs will no doubt make a good stab at quantifying the bad news for a range of ‘case study’ families.
For some of our clients the changes could require a rethink of their f
uture financial plans and using our experience and lifetime cashflow modelling software, we will be able to demonstrate the effect of changes such as increased expenditure and deferring retirement age (increase in State pension age to 66).
We also expect many more people to ask us to help them examine carefully their pension arrangements, particularly those people whose jobs are in jeopardy or whose pension benefits are being diluted. We fully expect that many final salary pension schemes will require increased contributions for lower benefits at a later pension age.
We won’t know for some time whether the medicine the coalition has administered has saved the day or pushed us towards a double-dip recession. Economists seem fairly equally divided on this point. All we can say for now is that we are here for our clients, ready to listen and provide practical advice.
Find out more about Hart Brown's Financial Planning Department
Read more about the author of this article
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Never never land
The National Patient Safety Agency defines “never events” as serious, largely preventable patient safety incidents that should not occur if the available preventative measures have been put in place by healthcare providers. The initial list of 8 “never events” included
• Wrong site surgery
• Retained instrumentation post-surgery
• Wrong route administration of chemotherapy
• Misplaced naso /oro-gastric tube not detected prior to use
• Maternal death from post partum haemorrhage following elective caesarean section
• Intra venous administration of mis-selected concentrated potassium chloride
A total of 111 never events were reported in 2009/10. Of these 57 related to wrong site surgery. This is despite the introduction of the “Surgical Safety Checklist”. A further 41 related to misplaced naso/oro-gastric tubes. Clearly the end of year report for the NHS should read “could do better.”
If you would like further advice on a potential clinical negligence claim please visit our website
Caroline Kerr, Solicitor, Clinical Negligence Department
• Wrong site surgery
• Retained instrumentation post-surgery
• Wrong route administration of chemotherapy
• Misplaced naso /oro-gastric tube not detected prior to use
• Maternal death from post partum haemorrhage following elective caesarean section
• Intra venous administration of mis-selected concentrated potassium chloride
A total of 111 never events were reported in 2009/10. Of these 57 related to wrong site surgery. This is despite the introduction of the “Surgical Safety Checklist”. A further 41 related to misplaced naso/oro-gastric tubes. Clearly the end of year report for the NHS should read “could do better.”
If you would like further advice on a potential clinical negligence claim please visit our website
Caroline Kerr, Solicitor, Clinical Negligence Department
Wednesday 6 October 2010
Lord Young's address to the Conservative Party Conference
This week Lord Young addressed the Conservative Party Conference about the operation of health and safety laws. Britain has one of the lowest incidences in Europe of accidents and deaths in the workplace. He concluded that the regulations in place, in relation to the construction and heavy industries, work well. In Lord Young’s view it is the overzealous application of these regulations in relation to non hazardous activities that creates the problem.
Employers, managers and head teachers, he said, are driven by a fear of being sued and not by a desire to prevent accidents. Lord Young was especially critical of the untrained and inexperienced “health and safety” consultants, employed by small businesses that recommend disproportionate safety measures. These businesses follow the recommendations of these unqualified consultants in the belief that compliance is a requirement of the terms of their insurance. This results in ludicrous policies such as the refusal of a restaurant to provide customers with toothpicks. Whilst we welcome a review of the practices of insurance firms and health and safety consultants had it not been for the enforcement of our health and safety laws by judges in personal injury cases up and down the country perhaps we wouldn’t have one of the lowest incidences in Europe of accidents and deaths in the workplace.
Read more about Hart Brown's personal injury department here
Employers, managers and head teachers, he said, are driven by a fear of being sued and not by a desire to prevent accidents. Lord Young was especially critical of the untrained and inexperienced “health and safety” consultants, employed by small businesses that recommend disproportionate safety measures. These businesses follow the recommendations of these unqualified consultants in the belief that compliance is a requirement of the terms of their insurance. This results in ludicrous policies such as the refusal of a restaurant to provide customers with toothpicks. Whilst we welcome a review of the practices of insurance firms and health and safety consultants had it not been for the enforcement of our health and safety laws by judges in personal injury cases up and down the country perhaps we wouldn’t have one of the lowest incidences in Europe of accidents and deaths in the workplace.
Read more about Hart Brown's personal injury department here
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Was the Government right to make child benefit cuts?
Yesterday, the Chancellor, George Osborne announced that child benefit payments will no longer be paid to couples where one parent earns over £44,000.00 per year or single parents who are working and earning over £44,000.00 per year.
However, couples who are both working and each earn up to £44,000.00 will still be able to claim child benefit.
The impact of this will therefore be on single parents who work and stay at home parents, whose partner or spouse works and earns over £44,000.00 a year.
In reality, couples who are both working, each earning up to £44,000.00, having a joint income of potentially £88,000.00 will still be able to claim child benefit, but couples with only one income of £45,000.00 will not.
There has been much protestation in the news about these cuts today as many people rely on child benefit as a source of income. Traditionally, the parent in receipt of child benefit has been able to use this for the benefit of the children for example to pay for holidays or Christmas without it being pooled with the family income.
Do you think the Government was right to make such a cut? Or do you think that there are other benefits that should be cut instead? Have you been affected by this latest news? Let us hear your views.
Article:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Family Department, Hart Brown
However, couples who are both working and each earn up to £44,000.00 will still be able to claim child benefit.
The impact of this will therefore be on single parents who work and stay at home parents, whose partner or spouse works and earns over £44,000.00 a year.
In reality, couples who are both working, each earning up to £44,000.00, having a joint income of potentially £88,000.00 will still be able to claim child benefit, but couples with only one income of £45,000.00 will not.
There has been much protestation in the news about these cuts today as many people rely on child benefit as a source of income. Traditionally, the parent in receipt of child benefit has been able to use this for the benefit of the children for example to pay for holidays or Christmas without it being pooled with the family income.
Do you think the Government was right to make such a cut? Or do you think that there are other benefits that should be cut instead? Have you been affected by this latest news? Let us hear your views.
Article:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Family Department, Hart Brown
Thursday 23 September 2010
TripAdviser defamation suit
News of a proposed action by a group of over 400 hotels and restaurants against the review site TripAdviser will be followed with interest by internet users and legal observers alike. It has been alleged that some of the reviews posted on the TripAdvisor website contain false allegations intended to affect business and impact on reputation. If the group can show that the content posted on the website is defamatory, TripAdviser would then have to either prove the truth of the statements posted under the ‘justification’ defence or defend them on grounds of ‘fair comment’.
Fair comment is a defence commonly relied on by critics and reviewers in media. The defence applies to a statement of opinion where a review is simply giving the writer’s opinion or comment however bad this may be. The right to express opinion on matters of public interest has grown increasingly popular on the internet through various online forums, social networking sites and user reviews however the comment or criticism should be fair, honest and based on true facts. The freedom to have an opinion is entrenched in the law on human rights and the fundamental principles of freedom of speech.
To falsify and distort facts and then to comment on them as if they are true is clearly not a fair comment and the potential claimants in this action are concerned about the nature and content of what is alleged in some of the reviews.
There is however some additional protection for internet service providers hosting online forums and review sites. This is where the ISP does not have actual knowledge of the defamatory material or knowledge of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the information is defamatory. If on obtaining knowledge of a defamatory statement the website fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the defamatory material it will lose this protection.
Therefore TripAdviser may be required to swiftly remove material once they are given notice of any defamatory content which falsifies facts in order to avoid legal action.
Read more about Hart Brown
Fair comment is a defence commonly relied on by critics and reviewers in media. The defence applies to a statement of opinion where a review is simply giving the writer’s opinion or comment however bad this may be. The right to express opinion on matters of public interest has grown increasingly popular on the internet through various online forums, social networking sites and user reviews however the comment or criticism should be fair, honest and based on true facts. The freedom to have an opinion is entrenched in the law on human rights and the fundamental principles of freedom of speech.
To falsify and distort facts and then to comment on them as if they are true is clearly not a fair comment and the potential claimants in this action are concerned about the nature and content of what is alleged in some of the reviews.
There is however some additional protection for internet service providers hosting online forums and review sites. This is where the ISP does not have actual knowledge of the defamatory material or knowledge of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the information is defamatory. If on obtaining knowledge of a defamatory statement the website fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the defamatory material it will lose this protection.
Therefore TripAdviser may be required to swiftly remove material once they are given notice of any defamatory content which falsifies facts in order to avoid legal action.
Read more about Hart Brown
Wednesday 22 September 2010
Judge says that children are damaged by divorcing parents
This morning on the BBC Breakfast News, comments made in a speech by a senior family judge, Sir Nicholas Wall were discussed.
The speech was made to the charity Families Need Fathers. In the speech, he said that parents “do not realise the damage they do to their children” and that a child’s self worth can be “irredeemably damaged” if one parent makes it clear to the child that their other parent is worthless. He also said that parents find it hard to understand that even though they have separated from their spouse, their children will still love and be loyal to both of them.
Discussing the matter this morning, Liz Edwards from Resolution said that parents don’t have enough information on how to manage their relationship with an ex-spouse going forward. Craig Pickering from Families Need Fathers advised for parents to seek help on separation.
As commented by Liz Edwards, parents should consider what they want to achieve and then consider what the effect will be on the children. Perhaps easier said than done for separating spouses when emotions are raw? However, with the support of an understanding lawyer, this can be much more achievable than one might think.
At Hart Brown, our lawyers are Resolution (which was formerly known as the Solicitors Family Law Association) accredited and we understand that separation can be a difficult time for both parents and children. We will work with you to find practical solutions and to help minimise the negative impact on children.
Link to BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11380470
Read more about Hart Brown's Family Department
The speech was made to the charity Families Need Fathers. In the speech, he said that parents “do not realise the damage they do to their children” and that a child’s self worth can be “irredeemably damaged” if one parent makes it clear to the child that their other parent is worthless. He also said that parents find it hard to understand that even though they have separated from their spouse, their children will still love and be loyal to both of them.
Discussing the matter this morning, Liz Edwards from Resolution said that parents don’t have enough information on how to manage their relationship with an ex-spouse going forward. Craig Pickering from Families Need Fathers advised for parents to seek help on separation.
As commented by Liz Edwards, parents should consider what they want to achieve and then consider what the effect will be on the children. Perhaps easier said than done for separating spouses when emotions are raw? However, with the support of an understanding lawyer, this can be much more achievable than one might think.
At Hart Brown, our lawyers are Resolution (which was formerly known as the Solicitors Family Law Association) accredited and we understand that separation can be a difficult time for both parents and children. We will work with you to find practical solutions and to help minimise the negative impact on children.
Link to BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11380470
Read more about Hart Brown's Family Department
Friday 3 September 2010
Cheryl & Ashley Cole - How quick will their divorce really be?
Today, the media are reporting that Ashley and Cheryl Cole’s divorce will be finalised in the High Court today.
However, this is not correct. The Decree Nisi will be pronounced today in court, which is the first decree in the divorce proceedings. There are two decrees in any divorce, the second one being the Decree Absolute. It is only when the Decree Absolute has been pronounced that the marriage will legally be dissolved.
There is a time delay of six weeks and one day once the Decree Nisi has been pronounced and before the Decree Absolute can be applied for by the Petitioner in the proceedings. The reason for this delay is that this is deemed to be a ‘cooling off’ period, and during this time, the parties are still legally married. The purpose of this is that it gives both parties time to consider a reconciliation. Contrary to what the media portray, a divorce is not obtained so easily in England and Wales and the court must be satisfied that there are valid reasons and that both parties have fully considered the consequences. Therefore, Ashley and Cheryl will remain married for at least another six weeks and one day!
Cheryl and Ashley’s divorce, as with many celebrity divorces is being termed by the media as a ‘quickie divorce’. However, the concept of the ‘quickie divorce’ does not exist and Cheryl and Ashley will be proceeding through exactly the same divorce process as any other couple. There is of course also the financial settlement that appears to have been negotiated which is separate to the divorce proceedings. It can take some time to reach a financial settlement, especially where there is a considerable amount of wealth.
Link to news story:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11173177
Anne Thomas, Family Department, Hart Brown Solicitors
However, this is not correct. The Decree Nisi will be pronounced today in court, which is the first decree in the divorce proceedings. There are two decrees in any divorce, the second one being the Decree Absolute. It is only when the Decree Absolute has been pronounced that the marriage will legally be dissolved.
There is a time delay of six weeks and one day once the Decree Nisi has been pronounced and before the Decree Absolute can be applied for by the Petitioner in the proceedings. The reason for this delay is that this is deemed to be a ‘cooling off’ period, and during this time, the parties are still legally married. The purpose of this is that it gives both parties time to consider a reconciliation. Contrary to what the media portray, a divorce is not obtained so easily in England and Wales and the court must be satisfied that there are valid reasons and that both parties have fully considered the consequences. Therefore, Ashley and Cheryl will remain married for at least another six weeks and one day!
Cheryl and Ashley’s divorce, as with many celebrity divorces is being termed by the media as a ‘quickie divorce’. However, the concept of the ‘quickie divorce’ does not exist and Cheryl and Ashley will be proceeding through exactly the same divorce process as any other couple. There is of course also the financial settlement that appears to have been negotiated which is separate to the divorce proceedings. It can take some time to reach a financial settlement, especially where there is a considerable amount of wealth.
Link to news story:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11173177
Anne Thomas, Family Department, Hart Brown Solicitors
Wednesday 25 August 2010
The Right to Strike
The London Underground can try to obtain an injunction to prevent strike action, but only if the Union has failed to comply with specific legal requirements, making the ballot and any subsequent strike unlawful. (For example the employer is entitled to know which ‘category of worker’ is being balloted. Without this precise information the employer is unable to identify the steps he may need to take to address the employees concerns or to make alternative arrangements to enable the business to function in their absence).
All employees participating in strike action are at risk. Failing to attend work is a fundamental breach of their contract of employment, and they will not be paid for days they do not work. Employees participating in unofficial strike action may be fairly dismissed. As the dismissal arises out of a breach of the employees contract they will not be entitled to notice pay. Any employee who does not work and is involved in ‘unofficial’ union action may be dismissed, even if attending meetings on their day off, or not working through fear of reprisals.
Dismissal is only automatically unfair if the employee is dismissed within 12 weeks of participating in official strike action, or the employee is absent for specific statutory or family reasons, or has been subjected to ‘selective treatment’.
Employment businesses may not provide agency workers to the employer to enable the provision of services to continue
Read more about Hart Brown's employment department
All employees participating in strike action are at risk. Failing to attend work is a fundamental breach of their contract of employment, and they will not be paid for days they do not work. Employees participating in unofficial strike action may be fairly dismissed. As the dismissal arises out of a breach of the employees contract they will not be entitled to notice pay. Any employee who does not work and is involved in ‘unofficial’ union action may be dismissed, even if attending meetings on their day off, or not working through fear of reprisals.
Dismissal is only automatically unfair if the employee is dismissed within 12 weeks of participating in official strike action, or the employee is absent for specific statutory or family reasons, or has been subjected to ‘selective treatment’.
Employment businesses may not provide agency workers to the employer to enable the provision of services to continue
Read more about Hart Brown's employment department
Monday 23 August 2010
Legal aid clinical negligence work
The personal injury and clinical negligence team are delighted to confirm that their Tender for legal aid clinical negligence work has been successful.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) who currently run legal aid notified the Team this morning to confirm the award of the Tender.
This will allow Hart Brown to continue providing legal aid services to clients who are eligible for legal aid although the Team also undertakes work for clients on a No Win No Fee basis and also under any legal expenses insurance a client may have plus traditional privately funded work.
Hart Brown has been able to offer legal aid to its clinical negligence clients who are financially eligible for many years and therefore it is a very pleasing to be able to continue to do that work where we have had some great successes most recently winning two case for severely brain injured clients which would on a lump sum basis amount to £10 million if put together.
Read more about Hart Brown's Clinical Negligence Department.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) who currently run legal aid notified the Team this morning to confirm the award of the Tender.
This will allow Hart Brown to continue providing legal aid services to clients who are eligible for legal aid although the Team also undertakes work for clients on a No Win No Fee basis and also under any legal expenses insurance a client may have plus traditional privately funded work.
Hart Brown has been able to offer legal aid to its clinical negligence clients who are financially eligible for many years and therefore it is a very pleasing to be able to continue to do that work where we have had some great successes most recently winning two case for severely brain injured clients which would on a lump sum basis amount to £10 million if put together.
Read more about Hart Brown's Clinical Negligence Department.
Friday 13 August 2010
AvMA (Action against Medical Accidents) report on implementation of patient safety alerts
As some of you may have heard on the Today programme this morning the current situation in relation to patient safety alerts is nothing short of scandalous. Patient safety alerts are issued by the National Patient Safety agency to health trusts about problems that repeatedly result in injury or even death to patients which could have been avoided. Under the alerts a set of actions needs to be completed by a set deadline.
Although problems with this system were identified in an earlier report from AvMA in February 2010 as at 7 June 2010 63% of health trusts had failed to comply with at least one alert and 29 trusts had not complied with 10 or more alerts.
In relation to an alert issued on the 20 May 2004 there were still 6 instances of it not being complied with. Since a number of trusts have proved themselves capable of 100% compliance with patient safety alerts (and they are clearly to be congratulated for this) what is happening to the trusts in default? One trust for example has 23 alerts outstanding.
AvMA’s report highlights not only the problems with individual trust but with the whole system of monitoring and regulating compliance with these alerts.
For anyone with an interest in this area a full report can be found at www.avma.org.uk
To find out more about how Hart Brown can help with a clinical negligence claim, visit our website
Although problems with this system were identified in an earlier report from AvMA in February 2010 as at 7 June 2010 63% of health trusts had failed to comply with at least one alert and 29 trusts had not complied with 10 or more alerts.
In relation to an alert issued on the 20 May 2004 there were still 6 instances of it not being complied with. Since a number of trusts have proved themselves capable of 100% compliance with patient safety alerts (and they are clearly to be congratulated for this) what is happening to the trusts in default? One trust for example has 23 alerts outstanding.
AvMA’s report highlights not only the problems with individual trust but with the whole system of monitoring and regulating compliance with these alerts.
For anyone with an interest in this area a full report can be found at www.avma.org.uk
To find out more about how Hart Brown can help with a clinical negligence claim, visit our website
How will a change in retirement age affect businesses?
It is worth considering the impact of the removal of the default retirement age on companies and individuals. If someone at or approaching 65 is underperforming then companies will be more inclined to follow capability procedures, and terminate for lack of capacity, whereas before they might have been prepared to wait until they could lawfully issue notice of retirement.
Companies may also ensure a retirement age is included in their contracts of employment. Alternatively, where the above does not apply, individuals who may have been looking forward to retiring at 65, may now feel morally compelled to work longer.
Removal of the default retirement age could result in increased litigation. Older people may challenge contractual retirement ages, believe they have been unfairly targeted for capability proceedings, or feel that termination for any other reason, including redundancy, is in fact age discrimination and an alternative means of terminating employment when they can no longer be forced to retire at 65. (We know that age discrimination exists, hence the difficulty for older workers seeking re-employment- removing the default retirement age will not remove the underlying problem).
Read more about Hart Brown's Employment department.
Companies may also ensure a retirement age is included in their contracts of employment. Alternatively, where the above does not apply, individuals who may have been looking forward to retiring at 65, may now feel morally compelled to work longer.
Removal of the default retirement age could result in increased litigation. Older people may challenge contractual retirement ages, believe they have been unfairly targeted for capability proceedings, or feel that termination for any other reason, including redundancy, is in fact age discrimination and an alternative means of terminating employment when they can no longer be forced to retire at 65. (We know that age discrimination exists, hence the difficulty for older workers seeking re-employment- removing the default retirement age will not remove the underlying problem).
Read more about Hart Brown's Employment department.
Tuesday 10 August 2010
BBC - Panorama - R.I.P off - further comment
Last nights episode of Panorama has created a big buzz in our trust department at Hart Brown, the Head of our Trusts and Investments department Paul Tobias commented:
You need to be of sound mind to make a will. After the Panorama report on will writers last night, I question whether anyone using a will writer can be regarded as of sound mind. For something as important as your will, the only sensible thing to do is to use solicitors who specialise in advising on and drafting wills. Surely it is better to use highly regulated (and insured) professionals rather than taking the risk of getting involved with unregulated unqualified will writers?
Read more about Hart Brown's Trusts section here
You need to be of sound mind to make a will. After the Panorama report on will writers last night, I question whether anyone using a will writer can be regarded as of sound mind. For something as important as your will, the only sensible thing to do is to use solicitors who specialise in advising on and drafting wills. Surely it is better to use highly regulated (and insured) professionals rather than taking the risk of getting involved with unregulated unqualified will writers?
Read more about Hart Brown's Trusts section here
BBC - Panorama - R.I.P off
I have often warned people about the lack of regulation among will writers and the fact that they are not required to have any qualifications at all. However, the BBC’s Panorama programme entitled “R.I.P. Off” was a very sobering view of the unregulated legal services that are being marketed. The programme highlighted hidden fees, extremely poor administration of estates, theft and fraud, but I would say that, wouldn’t I? I’m a solicitor. In order to become a solicitor, you train for a total of 6 years, you are governed by the Law Society and if after that something goes wrong, there is the Solicitors Compensation Fund and indemnity insurance to turn to.
It appears there are two tiers of advice available:
1. Solicitors with the training and regulation
2. A steadily growing industry of unqualified and unregulated will writers and probate service providers.
All of the assets that you have worked for and built up over your life are governed by your will. It is a document which is too important not to get absolutely right. Or is my view tainted because I am a solicitor? Perhaps there are those who think that there should be less regulation in the legal world and that it should be the choice of the individual as to whether they choose to use the services of a will writer.
I would be interested to hear your views.
To read more about this author - Shaun Parry-Jones, click here
It appears there are two tiers of advice available:
1. Solicitors with the training and regulation
2. A steadily growing industry of unqualified and unregulated will writers and probate service providers.
All of the assets that you have worked for and built up over your life are governed by your will. It is a document which is too important not to get absolutely right. Or is my view tainted because I am a solicitor? Perhaps there are those who think that there should be less regulation in the legal world and that it should be the choice of the individual as to whether they choose to use the services of a will writer.
I would be interested to hear your views.
To read more about this author - Shaun Parry-Jones, click here
Friday 6 August 2010
A marriage made in hell?
The average cost of a modern wedding exceeds £20,000.00. Often, couples borrow that money and then start their married life in debt. Does this put more pressure on a marriage in its early stages? Would that money be better utilised towards the couple’s future together?
Are couples placing more emphasis on the wedding day rather than the marriage that will follow? Do couples that marry on a ‘whim’ realise the financial and other implications should that marriage break down? Not only that, but the cost of the divorce itself and the resolution of the financial issues? Is enough serious thought given to the meaning of what a marriage is, not just in the emotional sense, but in a legal and financial sense?
Has the morality gone out of weddings, and are the religious connotations disappearing as more couples opt for civil ceremonies?
It would seem that the media and the current ‘celebrity culture’ are having a huge impact on weddings. Do TV programmes such as “Four Weddings” and “Don’t tell the bride” detract from a wedding’s true meaning?
Read the bbc news article here
Read more about Hart Brown's family department
Are couples placing more emphasis on the wedding day rather than the marriage that will follow? Do couples that marry on a ‘whim’ realise the financial and other implications should that marriage break down? Not only that, but the cost of the divorce itself and the resolution of the financial issues? Is enough serious thought given to the meaning of what a marriage is, not just in the emotional sense, but in a legal and financial sense?
Has the morality gone out of weddings, and are the religious connotations disappearing as more couples opt for civil ceremonies?
It would seem that the media and the current ‘celebrity culture’ are having a huge impact on weddings. Do TV programmes such as “Four Weddings” and “Don’t tell the bride” detract from a wedding’s true meaning?
Read the bbc news article here
Read more about Hart Brown's family department
Thursday 5 August 2010
Ian Huntley
So much outrage about whether Ian Huntley should recover compensation if the prison service has not protected him properly.
Does everyone deserve to be protected –no matter what they have done or should some people be thrown to the lions? Do criminals have any rights? Should criminals be entitled to compensation?
Or should the question be what should happen to compensation a criminal receives? Should they start paying for their keep in prison on a daily basis? Should their victims recover compensation? In fact should any criminal who has money or comes into money by whatever means be forced to pay for their upkeep in prison at least until their private funds run out?
Some interesting questions.
What do you think?
Read the full story here
www.hartbrown.co.uk
Does everyone deserve to be protected –no matter what they have done or should some people be thrown to the lions? Do criminals have any rights? Should criminals be entitled to compensation?
Or should the question be what should happen to compensation a criminal receives? Should they start paying for their keep in prison on a daily basis? Should their victims recover compensation? In fact should any criminal who has money or comes into money by whatever means be forced to pay for their upkeep in prison at least until their private funds run out?
Some interesting questions.
What do you think?
Read the full story here
www.hartbrown.co.uk
Monday 21 June 2010
Welcome to our blog
Welcome to our new Blog!
As you may have already seen, we have recently launched a new brand! We have been working very hard over the last few months to develop the brand, and to keep it a secret!
We hope you like it!
We will be updating our blog, with news from around the firm and hopefully providing some "day in the life of.." posts. If there is any aspect of our law firm that you would like to know more about please let us know!
As you may have already seen, we have recently launched a new brand! We have been working very hard over the last few months to develop the brand, and to keep it a secret!
We hope you like it!
We will be updating our blog, with news from around the firm and hopefully providing some "day in the life of.." posts. If there is any aspect of our law firm that you would like to know more about please let us know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)