Wednesday 26 January 2011

Can't take it with you - will disputes

The second programme in Gerry Robinson’s series “You can’t take it with you” continued to explore the potentially thorny issues which can arise in the complicated family relationships which exist in the modern age. The idea of the programme is to get people in the process of making their wills to discuss things openly with their sometimes extended families to try and reach some sort of agreement and to prevent upset and dispute after their deaths. We often get involved in helping clients to resolve these issues after death where either no will has been made or a will made long ago has become out of date because it fails to take account of changed circumstances. In addition to that we sometimes become involved as a mediator trying to settle sometimes long running disputes. Is it that by simply getting everyone together before death resolves these potential problems at a stroke or does the spotlight of television itself alter the dynamics because people on camera want to be seen in public to be as reasonable as possible?

Find out more about the author of this article, Paul Grimwood

Find out more about Will Disputes

Wednesday 19 January 2011

Divorce - the cheapest option isn't always the best option.

The president of the Law Society was recently questioned about his thoughts on internet divorce; he stated that “the cheapest option is not always the best” and that “online divorce is not suitable for cases where there is an imbalance of power between the spouses, or where a spouse is withholding information.” Without a solicitor how do you know if your spouse is withholding information? How do you address the imbalance of power without external influence?

A Managing Director from an online divorce company also commented recently saying that “we recommend people seek advice from solicitors...we can’t give advice”.

Would you be tempted to have a “cheap” divorce online? Can year's of marriage really be ended in such a simple way? Can your assets be split that easily?

Find out more about how Hart Brown’s Divorce lawyers can help.

Monday 17 January 2011

Parents to share parental leave

Is it really patronising to allow a mother to have time off with her new born child? She has carried the child and is biologically ready to nurse and care for her babies needs. Undoubtedly the father, or partner of either sex, wants to be involved in bringing up the new addition to the family and it is in the babies best interests to have the care and attention of both parents.

Will there be career implications for either parent who choose to take large blocks of time out to be with the baby, and perhaps only return to work part time thereafter? Employers may find it difficult to obtain cover for either parent who is out of the work place for 6 months to a year. Flexible working can be difficult to accommodate, and how will small employers cope with ever increasing numbers of their work force requesting flexible working? Mothers, fathers, grandparents, and ‘close family friends’, will be able to make these applications?

It is usually obvious when a woman becomes pregnant, or in the later stages of pregnancy, and an employer can anticipate 12 months maternity leave. How will an employer deal with the partner, who unexpectedly announces pending paternity and the ‘requirement’ to take a lengthy period of leave?

From April 2011 the entitlement to take additional paternity leave gives the mother’s partner the opportunity to use any remaining portion of her optional 52 weeks maternity leave. Good employers will want to be seen to be flexible and accommodating, but how much notice will they really have? The regulations require a partner to give 8 weeks notice! It is not just a matter of employers finding staff to cover employees on leave, they also have to continue to provide all contractual benefits to those on leave other than wages. There will also be continuing uncertainty over whether either the mother or her partner, will return to work full time, or at all, at the end of the maternity or paternity leave. And what about the financial implications for the new parents? Currently the mother is entitled to 6 weeks at 90% of her salary and the father to a maximum of £128.73 (or 90% of salary if lower) for the first 2 weeks only. After that the father is not entitled to any statutory payment and the mother to the rate of £128.73 (or 90% of salary if lower) for the remaining 33 weeks of the 39 week period. Many employers contractually provide enhanced maternity payments, but will this be extended to cover long periods of paternity leave?

Read the original article here
Read about the author of this article, Liz Whitehead

Find out more about Hart Brown can help with employment issues

"Can't take it with you" - have your thought about you will?

The BBC programme “Can’t take it with you”, aired on Friday night, reiterated the thinking that about 70% of us will die without leaving a valid will. The programme centred around two couples, who were in second relationships, struggling to resolve the thorny issue of what should happen to their estates on their deaths.

The resulting wills would not have tested a competent solicitor specialising in the area. However, the most interesting issue arising was the question of “how do you reach a stage at which a solution between the parties can be agreed upon?”. The answer to that is COMMUNICATION!. Communication with your partner and communication with the family. It is so often the case that people are not prepared to discuss what is, after all, eventually going to happen to us all, death. Many examples could be listed where families have not spoken prior to someone’s death and the result is an acrimonious mess.

There are six episodes in this series and the three lessons to be taken from the first episode are:-

  • Communication; and,

  • Obtain specialist advice from a solicitor practising in the area of wills, it is too important not to get the will right. A badly drawn will might even be worse than having no will at all!; and

  • Don’t put off making a will because it is too difficult to think about.



  • Making a will can be difficult emotionally and, in extreme cases, can test relationships. However, not resolving the issues and leaving it can be more hurtful to those left to pick up the pieces. Wills are essential documents to have in place particularly in the most difficult situations. If you are finding that you are putting off making a will because it is difficult for you to consider then you probably need one in place more than others!

    Find out more about the author of this article, Shaun Parry-Jones

    find out more about the BBC series "Can't take it with you"

    MP's and their expenses

    Do you find it astonishing that an MP who fiddles his expenses (basically steals from the taxpayer) does not lose his job as MP (or cannot be forced to) unless he is sentenced to more than a year’s prison? Making the sentence determine whether you lose your job rather than the crime is surely a novel approach? Stealing when you are in a position of trust is stealing – whether it is £100 or £1million. The point is surely that the trust so essential in his role or in an employment role is destroyed because there has been dishonesty. Can you trust someone who has stolen from you again? Would you trust your cleaner who takes £1 which you have left lying around?

    Employers have always taken a very serious view of any theft by staff however small. Small can lead to larger. Summary dismissal is usual. Why should the taxpayer (who employs the MP's – something we often forget) view it differently. Should MPs automatically lose their position if convicted of a serious crime such as theft, dishonesty, lying?

    More about the author of this article, Bettina Brueggemann

    Thursday 13 January 2011

    Government scrapping default retirement age

    Scrapping the default retirement age only means that employees will not automatically be expected to retire at a fixed age. There is no reason for experienced capable staff to retire just because they are 65. But will employers look to put clauses into contracts of employment stipulating a fixed age of retirement based on the nature of their business? If employers want a fixed age they can still insert this into their contracts of employment. (The employer will still need to be able to objectively justify a fixed contractual age for retirement, and this may largely depend on the nature of the business). Otherwise, if there are concerns about any employee’s capability, regardless of age, then capability procedures can be followed in the normal way. Vacancies arise when staff leave employment, or the company expands. In a buoyant market staff move on to increase experience, more varied roles or for greater salaries. Is retirement a major reason for staff vacancies? It is thought not. There is an argument to support the proposition that older workers are more reliable and more loyal, and less likely to leave their existing employer to enhance career progression. But will employers embrace or exploit this law?

    Employers should continue to ensure they follow fair procedures both at the recruitment stage and at termination. They may otherwise face proceedings for age discrimination. What do you think?

    Find out more about Hart Brown's employment department

    Find out more about the author of this article, Liz Whitehead
    Read the BBC article

    Should Eric Illsley go to prison?

    Should Eric Illsley go to prison for fiddling expenses or is community service a better option? Interestingly the public asked so far favour community service rather than prison because he is not a danger to the public, it costs the taxpayer less and he is forced to do something for the community which is visible.

    Your view might depend on what you think the purpose of prison is. Is it intended to protect the public from dangerous people, punish someone by depriving them of their freedom or both? When talking about dangerous people do we mean people who threaten our physical safety or is it broader than that? Is stealing money not dangerous for those losing it? Or are we saying that Eric Illsley is not dangerous because he no longer has the opportunity to steal money or has learnt his lesson?

    I am not sure a lesson needs to be learnt. Eric Illsley knew he was doing wrong. He got caught. He is responsible for setting the example. He therefore needs to set the example in terms of punishment for his crime. Whatever your view is as to what the punishment should be it should then apply to everyone else – including those stealing from their employers.

    Read more here
    Find our more about Hart Brown and the author of this article, Bettina Brueggemann

    Wednesday 12 January 2011

    Protecting an idea?

    The case of the Winklvoss twins accusing Mark Zuckerberg of stealing their idea in the creation of Facebook is news around the world and as such is equally relevant here in the UK in raising the question of whether an idea can be protected and if so how?

    Under UK law the protections offered vary greatly as an idea can take many forms and it is the form that the idea takes that results in the type and level of protection that it is afforded.

    To establish the protection given to an idea it needs to be established:

    How is it presented?
    Is it in a written or recorded form?
    Is it a method or process?
    Is it an item or tangible object?
    How did the idea come about?
    Is the idea confined to the UK, or is international protection necessary?

    The underlying principle behind these questions is clear - if the idea is formally recorded either through trademark, patent, design or copyright, it is much easier to enforce should any alleged breach occur.

    As can be seen from the Facebook dispute failure to record an idea can be costly…

    Find out more about Hart Browns Commercial Business department

    Tuesday 11 January 2011

    ex-BBC presenter wins ageism and victimisation claims

    Today ex-BBC Countryfile presenter, Miriam O’Reilly won her claims of ageism and victimisation at London Central Employment Tribunal. The compensation to be awarded will be decided at another hearing in a few weeks time, however, a figure of around £100,000, including lost earnings and an amount for injury to feelings, is likely to be awarded.

    Miriam O’Reilly, 53, was one of four female presenters who were dropped from Countryfile when it was moved it from Sunday mornings to a primetime slot early Sunday evenings. The others included Juliette Morris, Charlotte Smith and Michaela Strachan. The current Countryfile presenters are Matt Baker and Julia Bradbury and both are significantly younger than Miriam.

    In its judgment, the tribunal said "if the claimant had been 10 to 15 years younger, she would have been given proper consideration to remain as a presenter of Countryfile. The discrimination was not justified. The wish to appeal to a primetime audience, including younger viewers, is a legitimate aim. however, we do not accept that it has been established that choosing younger presenters is required to appeal to such an audience."

    The tribunal rejected the BBC's suggestion that it had devised and adopted proper criteria for choosing the new Countryfile presenters and said that the explanation of the selection process offered in evidence by the BBC was "complacent".

    The tribunal also found that the decision which not to give Miriam O'Reilly any further writing work on Countryfile magazine was "an act of victimisation" resulting from "annoyance as to the allegations that [Miriam O’Reilly] was making".

    This case is a reminder to even the most high profile employers that employers should ensure that clear, objective and non-discriminatory selection criteria should be used throughout all employment policies in order to reduce the risk of employment tribunal claims and promote equality in the workplace.

    Find out more about how Hart Brown can help with a discrimination claim

    Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission

    The Daily Telegraph has reported that within the next few days, the DWP will be announcing proposals to charge parents for the services of CMEC (the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission). CMEC is one of the “quangoes” the government is considering scrapping, with the service being taken under the wing of the DWP in order to save costs. It is thought that the DWP will be asking for the public’s views on charging parents for collecting child maintenance, including how much should be charged. In the meantime, let us know your first thoughts on the matter.

    Find out more about Hart Brown's family department

    Monday 10 January 2011

    UK house prices fell 1.3% in December 2010

    Our solicitors comment on the BBC article "UK house prices fell 1.3% in December, Halifax says"

    The article comes as no surprise as the last 2 or 3 months have seen pressure on prices. Clients of ours who sold in the late summer, only to lose their buyers and to re sell in November and December are having to take a reduced offer to re sell. Agents are desperate to keep buyers on board where matters have stagnated telling our sellers “you will not achieve this price in the current climate and for the foreseeable future”. Gazzundering, where buyers come in at the last minute requesting a price reduction for no reason other than the market suggests a reduction in value, is common place but does not seem to receive the press coverage expressing the out rage that accompanies the opposite, gazumping, when a seller ups the price at the last minute. Interestingly gazundering is seen as fair game but gazzumping as abhorrent.

    There are no indicators as yet that the market is going to pick up at all from a price perspective in the coming 12 months and if anything is going to continue to slide downwards. This is positive from the point of view of first time buyers and those moving up market and so does not deserve the negative press that a sliding market receives. The negative press is generally generated by those having a vested interest in the market flying away upwards, estate agents and mortgage lenders.

    Stability and volume is what most people in the interest would like to see.

    Find out more about Hart Brown's Residential property team based in Surrey and South London

    Prime Minister to talk jobs with big business

    Is making it easier for small businesses to hire and fire staff going to help the economy and small businesses generally?

    A common complaint by employers is that dismissing disruptive or not very competent staff or someone who does not fit into an organisation which in turn causes disharmony within the office is very difficult. There are lots of hoops to go through and whether you do it all correctly or not you can still be faced with a claim in the employment tribunal with its inherent costs. At the same time it is important that employees are given protection. Finding yourself unemployed (as so many have experienced in the last few years) is devastating to your self esteem, finances and life.

    Working for an employer for many years only to be dismissed for no reason can’t be right either. Getting the balance therefore of protecting a business so that it can continue to employ people and generate income while protecting the employee’s rights is hard. It is difficult to see how requiring a fee to be paid when bringing a claim in the employment tribunal would make much difference other than assist the deficit!! Perhaps the tribunal should be much tougher when assessing a case in the early stages with a view to sifting out spurious claims. Maybe it should make more use of the requirement for a claimant to put funds into court where the claims appears weak and maybe tribunals should not allow fundamental changes to a claimant’s case late in the day. What do you think?

    Read the article here
    Find out more about Hart Brown's employment team in Guildford

    Friday 7 January 2011

    Englands Cricket Victory

    The longest running sagas of my professional career but at last completion has taken place. No, not a long winded property matter, but the winning of an Ashes series Down Under, the first such victory since I qualified with HB 25 years ago.

    My presence in Australia over Christmas must be a major factor in this remarkable change of fortunes….

    Roll on 2013 when what is likely to be an invigorated Aussie side comes to our shores to try and win the Ashes back

    Author: David Knapp

    Thursday 6 January 2011

    Hart Brown team jump to victory

    Hart Brown solicitor Emily Wiggins and her horse Basil jumped to victory during their first outing of winter winning the Senior British Novice Championship in Surrey. Despite being hampered by the snow during the winter season, Emily managed to get Basil to the event for their first class of the season.

    Sponsored by the Surrey based law firm the young solicitor and her horse were up against fierce competition but, wearing their new Hart Brown branded equipment, managed to win the title run by British Showjumping.

    Talking after the event Emily said “It was a challenge to train during the bad weather but the hard work paid off. I’m looking forward to competing in more local and national circuits both show jumping and eventing”.

    Emily, who has been riding Basil for 8 years, plans to combine show jumping indoors over the next couple of months with some cross country schooling and fast work to get fit for the next eventing season which kicks off in the spring.