The owner of Rangers, Craig Whyte, is reported to have said he had no choice but to proceed with the submission because of the ongoing tax battle with HM Revenue and Customs. He is said to have insisted that there was no alternative at this point but if the club could come to a manageable and mutually acceptable agreement with the HMRC, the future of the club could perhaps be secured without resorting to insolvency.

This is the latest chapter in a long list of insolvency litigation against the Scottish champions. It has previously been reported that both former chief executive Martin Bain and former finance director Donald McIntyre have issued claims for damages against the club. Due to claims already made, nearly half a million pounds of the club’s assets are said to have been frozen, because of the risk of insolvency if the HMRC wins a separate case against the Club.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to advise you on any insolvency litigation issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Bristol based company Charles Saunders Limited has bought their near neighbour Good Morning Disposables to create a new company with an estimated combined turnover of over £20 million. Despite reports of more than fifty enquiries from potential buyers around the UK, with an interest in Good Morning Disposables, the eventual purchaser was found just a few hundred yards away from the company location in Bristol.

Good Morning Disposables was sold by its founders who are retiring from the dry and chilled food distribution business. Over the past thirty years the company had been built into a major distributor of foods and disposable tableware and cutlery to restaurants, offices, universities and schools throughout Bristol. Their buyers Charles Saunders Limited specialise in the distribution of fresh and frozen foods to many of the largest businesses in the city. The close proximity of the locations of the existing and new sites are an obvious advantage for the new company in terms of their organisation and workforce.

The teams of professionals advising the company were also Bristol based including company finance solicitors and accountants negotiating on behalf of the new company.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you with company finance issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

British legal claims are usually served on individuals with a paper copy in person or by mail or fax. Occasionally alternative methods are used if the people concerned are particularly difficult to contact in this way. In the case reported, a High Court Judge allowed the unusual method to serve documents during a pre-trial hearing in which investment managers accused a brokerage firm of overcharging them.

It is reported that a copy of the law suit had been left at the last known address of the defendant, but it was not clear if he was still living there. Commercial solicitors in the case had no email address or any other means of contact so they requested permission to send the claim through Facebook. Monitoring of the Facebook account had shown that it was still active and extra time was given for a response to the served documents in case the account was not accessed on a regular basis.

Although this is thought to be the first case in which a legal claim has been served in this way, commercial solicitors may find it a useful and increasingly common form of communication in the future.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help if you have any commercial disputes. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

It has been suggested that, under TUPE transfer arrangements, the change to a work location can in some cases be a significant change in working conditions and this can lead to successful claims for constructive dismissal.

A case heard at an Employment Appeal Tribunal centred around five bus drivers who were moved to a different depot that would cause them to spend up to two hours additional time travelling to and from work every day. The drivers resigned when their employment with CentreWest was transferred to Abellio which meant relocation of the bus depot from the Westbourne Park area of London to Battersea. The relocation of the depot meant that each of the drivers would need between one and two additional hours travelling time each day.

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects the rights of employees when a company is taken over by a new owner or when work is outsourced or if there is a change of service provider. Under TUPE employees can treat an employment contract as terminated when a transfer under the regulations results in a significant change in working conditions to the employees material detriment.

The tribunal in this case ruled that the bus drivers could make a constructive dismissal claim under rules designed to protect workers when their contracts are transferred to another employer.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help if you have any employment disputes relating to constructive dismissal or other employment issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

It has been reported that Yahoo is insisting that Facebook enter into licensing agreements in connection with some of its technologies, to bring it in line with many other major web and technology companies. If Facebook do not comply with Yahoo’s demand, it has been suggested that they will take legal action to protect their intellectual property rights.

Yahoo currently has a beneficial relationship with Facebook in particular in relation to integration of Yahoo News with the Facebook environment. This latest threat of intellectual property litigation could put the two companies in conflict over technologies that include advertising, personalization of websites and social networking.

Yahoo’s argument is that the company has invested a great deal of resources into these innovations and that they have a responsibility to shareholders and employees to protect intellectual property.

If Facebook do not comply with Yahoo’s petition they could both join a long line of technology companies, such as Google, Oracle, Motorola Mobility and Apple, embroiled in intellectual property litigation disputes.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help if you have any disputes relating to intellectual property, licensing, patents or any other property issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The warnings were voiced in a ruling that concluded a lengthy boundary dispute between owners of properties in Choumert Mews, in Peckham, south London. The dispute between neighbours was over a narrow strip of land in the courtyard of a T-shaped mews that several properties back onto. It has been reported that the Judge presiding suggested that quite apart from procedural complications it was regrettable that the case got to court at all,

Property litigation could have an expensive outcome that a professionally negotiated agreement might avoid. Solicitors representing disputing neighbours will try to settle a case, but if this fails the courts have to rule in accordance with the evidence and the law. A protracted legal battle in court could have unintended consequences that a sensible compromise might avert. In the long term both sides lose out if a long litigation process damages the potential sale prospects of their properties.

Property litigation between neighbours can be a very stressful and bitter experience creating bad feelings that do not end after a final judgement has been passed in the courts. Neighbours thinking of taking this route should consider seeking professional guidance from a solicitor at an early stage to see if a dispute can be resolved without a lengthy court battle.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help if you have any disputes relating to boundaries or any other property issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Around 1500 former workers, at LDV van manufacturers at Washwood Heath, are to finally receive up to £2,800 each in back pay. Solicitors acting the for the workers have won protective award payments following a lengthy legal battle and hearings at employment tribunals.

With the economic downturn and production at a standstill, the LDV plant was mothballed for six months in 2009 and closed in June of the same year with debts of £75 million. Workers at the factory were made redundant, along with thousands of others in the supply chain, but LDV did not hold a statutory 90-day consultation period with the union about the redundancies.

In spite of a victory at an employment tribunal in connection with their redundancy rights the workers were shocked to receive letters from the Redundancy Payments Office in Birmingham suggesting that they were not entitled to payments. Solicitors challenged the decision at a further tribunal last year and it was acknowledged that there had been a lack of consultation with the union and a decision was made in favour of the former employees.

After a long wait the former workers have finally received confirmation of their redundancy rights in writing and solicitors are clarifying final details before the money is distributed.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you make a claim if you are made redundant unfairly. If you have any employment or redundancy issues contact our team of highly trained solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The most common types of unfair terms are:

1. The Business’s right to unilaterally vary a contract
2. The Business’s right to unilaterally terminate a contract
3. The Business’s discretion to exercise contractual powers
4. The Business’s right to transfer obligations
5. Terms that are not in plain and intelligible language

If you think your Terms and Conditions could be seen as unfair, MLP Solicitors can review and amend them or draft new ones that are fair, appropriate and enforceable.

This could save you considerable time and costs in the future.

For more information on the above contact Stephen Attree or one of our Corporate & Commerical Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

For many divorcing or separating couples the largest asset is the marital home. Most couples who jointly own the property do so as “joint tenants” which means that they both own jointly own the whole property rather than each having a 50% share. The distinction between the two is difficult to understand but can have potentially significant consequences.

If the couple are joint tenants, should one of them die the other will automatically own the whole property. Neither party can leave their share by will to someone else because, technically speaking, they do not own a share. The property passes by a process known as “survivorship” which simply means that ownership passes to the surviving joint tenant.

This can have unintended consequences. If a party dies before an agreement is reached concerning the financial consequences of the separation, the property will pass to the surviving party even if the deceased party had other children, say from a previous marriage. It is therefore vital that this is issue is addressed at the outset of any separation, divorce of dissolution of a civil partnership.

A joint tenancy can be “severed” by one of the owners simply serving the appropriate notice on the other. This creates a “tenancy in common” by which, despite the property remaining in joint names, each owner has a 50% share which they can leave by will. Severing the joint tenancy is a unilateral act and does not require the consent of the other owner. It usually takes several months for an overall financial agreement to be reached leaving both parties in an uncertain position should the unexpected happen in the meantime.

MLP Solicitors are here to support you through the difficulties of a relationship breakdown. If you need advice on any aspect of divorce or dissolving a partnership then contact our team of experienced matrimonial solicitors at MLP Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Poundworld is huge retail success story, with a turnover of more than £500 million and stores throughout the uk. It has been reported that the company has high expectations of doubling the number of stores in the coming year.

Discount UK has grown rapidly since being formed in 2010, the company has stores as far a field as Swansea and Edinburgh and is expanding throughout the UK. The latest new store in Edinburgh, at Craigleith retail park, is the fifth store to be located in Scotland and brings the total to nearly 30 in the UK. Manchester solicitors are assisting with the applications for alcohol licenses as many regional stores are hoping to extend their range of products to include a range of drinks.

With shops in the Manchester area such as Warrington and most recently in Denton the company has recently advertised for Store Managers to join the business and contribute to the growth of the company.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help your company with expansion plans and can advise on a wide range of company and contractual issues. For your local Manchester solicitors contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

This rise in court cases is thought to be due to the increasingly restrictive contracts being given to agency employees who later leave to set up their own businesses. Contracts normally focus on covenants to deter direct competition if an employee leaves, these include non-solicitation of staff or clients and non-compete clauses that prevent ex-employees from working in competition, usually for a specific period of time. Contracts are often agreed at the beginning of employment and not changed as employees are promoted or roles change.

Although most cases do not make it to court employment contract lawyers are seeing Judges take a hard line with those that do, particularly in cases where clients or staff are “poached” before the period set out in a contract. Statistics show that the larger multinational companies are most likely to use the law to prevent competition and in some cases new companies can be forced to close if they contravene non-compete clauses set out in earlier employment contracts.

Employment contract lawyers note that these contractual issues generally apply to contracts with individual employees who subsequently set up a new venture but they do not apply to a future employer of that individual.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help if you have any disputes relating to non-compete causes or any other employment contract issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

HM Courts and Tribunal Services plan to cut counter services limiting the outlets available that provide litigants in person with information and advice. In the family courts, judges and court staff are already struggling to cope with the increase of litigants in person who often require more information during and before any hearing and extra time to comply with court directions and lodge documents at Court.

The prospect of even more Litigants in person in the family courts has also raised concerns that violent partners may use the Courts to bully their victims. Some people may be put off from pursuing their cases at all.

Without the benefit of structured legal advice, many litigants do not know the full extent of options available to them.

How we can help

We provide a FREE family advice clinic – see our website for details.

We can:

• Advise if you have access to any motor or household policy that provides legal services
• Advise on court-free solutions
• Advise on which court forms to use and guidance on completing forms.
• Give you guidance on the Small Claims Procedure, on each stage of a case and your role within it.
• We can advise you without obligation.
• Advise on the options available to you
• Give you the advice and support you need to confidently attend a hearing as a litigant in person
• Advise you on any prospects of appeal and the procedure involved.
• If you instruct us to act for you, we can give you fixed fee estimates.

The Galaxy Nexus was unveiled by Google and Samsung at the end of last year but the operating system had already been prohibited in a previous lawsuit. Apple’s commercial litigation lawyers have suggested that sales of the Galaxy Nexus during the patent lawsuit will not only cause Apple to lose out in the smart-phone market but also a large number of sales in the wider mobile market and irreparable damage to the company. The main argument in this case is that as consumers move to the smart-phone market their long-term preferences and purchases are influenced by the first operating system they buy.

Apple claims that numerous products marketed by Samsung transgress patents registered by Apple and that they have had to file lawsuits in many countries around the world. In a number of the cases injunctions have been granted against Samsung ordering the company to stop selling specific products and in other cases requiring the company to make changes to its products. However while there is a question over gain to Samsung and damage to Apple this ongoing battle between the companies seems set to occupy commercial litigation lawyers for the foreseeable future.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors can help you with a wide range of commercial disputes. If you need advice contact our team of highly trained commercial litigation solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Forty four year old Reverend Mark Sharpe, the former rector of Teme Valley South near Tenbury Wells, claims that he was driven from his job by parishioners after he and his family had been subjected to many incidents of harassment. Following his resignation Mr Sharpe has been trying bring a case of constructive dismissal against the diocese suggesting that he had been victim of the parishioners long-running campaign of harassment and intimidation and the Bishop and the diocese of Worcester failed to protect him.

At a preliminary hearing of the employment tribunal in Birmingham in November, the employment law solicitor representing Diocese of Worcester argued that Mr Sharpe had no claim because as a freehold incumbent he was not an employee but an office holder. They claimed the distinction that officers are not eligible to take a case against the church because they are “employed” by God, as opposed to employees of the bishop or the diocesan board of finance.

In a recently published reserved judgement, an employment judge ruled that Mr Sharpe cannot pursue legal action as he could not see that it was possible to imply a contract between a freehold rector in the Church and an identifiable person or body.

In this unusual case for an employment law solicitor Mr Sharpe was represented by the clergy section of the trade union Unite who are said to be considering the implications of the judgement.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you with any employment disputes. Contact our specialist employment solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Under the current system the Employment Inspector is required to investigate a complaint and has an obligation to try to settle disputes between employer and employee. If disputes are not resolved the Employment Inspector has the power to refer a complaint to an employment tribunal.

Disagreements can easily arise over such issues as level of pay or performance and a proactive employer will have a system for job appraisal, including regular reviews of progress. An employee can benefit from reviews as a forum to show their levels of performance or highlight where help is required. If a system is not in place or breaks down disputes can easily escalate and lead to employees leaving and an employer may lose a good employee who has invaluable knowledge of the business.

Taking a complaint to employee mediation within a business grievance process could help to resolve a dispute before it becomes necessary to a go through a formal statutory procedure. According to statistics a mediation step can help to resolve a dispute and a settlement can be achieved in more than 90 percent of cases. Bringing a complaint before the Employment Inspector can often cause delay and uncertainty and further undermine the relationship between employer and employee.

The pilot schemes may show that the use of employee mediation in the earlier stages of a dispute can be less costly and by achieving a resolution before formal procedures are necessary the Employment Inspectorate would only be required to deal with complaints that are unresolved despite the best efforts of the parties concerned.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you if you have been involved in an employment dispute. If you need advice then contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

One CCSP who everyone knows is Google, who markets cloud computing software under the name Cloud Computing Enterprise Software. Last week the Spanish banking giant, BBVA, issued a press release stating that it intends to switch its 110,000 staff to the Cloud Computing Enterprise Software for all internal data recording requirements.

Carman Herranz, BBVA’s Director of Innovation, was quoted as saying “we are in a challenging market and need to make faster and more accurate decisions…and eliminate duplication”.  Cloud Computing is indeed one way to help eliminate duplication in addition to enabling companies to become “paperlite”,  increase the mobility of the workforce and allowing employees to access the data they need from anywhere in the world. These can all be summarised as “cost saving”.  Sebastian Marotte, Head of Google Enterprise Apps in Europe, has said that corporate customers using their system achieved costs savings of between 50% and 70% last year.

For advise on how Cloud Computing may be appropriate for your business, please contact Stephen Attree or Awena Parry in the Corporate and Commercial Department at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

In the case of the Co-operative Group the decision to restructure the food division is said to be
to improve cost effectiveness whilst providing a better service to customers. In a recent statement the Co-op’s acting chief executive is reported to have said that the company will form a new operating model focused on efficiency and removing duplication of tasks.

In the proposed reorganisation it has been reported that it may be necessary to cut nearly 300 jobs, and the suggestion is that most jobs are likely to go at the companies head office in Manchester. The consultation process, which is due to end in May, will clarify how many staff will be offered voluntary redundancy and where staff will be able to apply for jobs in the new structure or in other businesses in the Co-operative Group.

Like many businesses the Co-op are trading in a tough environment and this is impacting on financial performance. It is important that companies in any financial difficulty seek professional advice from company restructure solicitors and financial advisers as soon as possible, to ensure that measures can be put in place in time to be effective.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help if your business is considering a reorganisation or has any restructuring issues. If you need advice, contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Contract Rules (but……..)

The terms of a contract are absolute, but the legal principle of “frustration” can automatically discharge a contract where there is a significant change of circumstances that makes it physically or commercially impossible to perform the contract as originally envisaged and agreed.

Most commercial contracts will deal with “force majeure”, but these need to be regarded with caution until the list of any specified events are checked and agreed to be true force majeure events.

Businesses need to ensure they have adequate business interruption procedures in place and to operate risk management systems.

We are regularly called on to advise on issues regarding businesses continuity issues in contracts and, in particular, documenting the support businesses require from their suppliers.  For instance, if you rely on a raw material, how will you be dealt with by your supplier if there is a general or world-wide shortage of that raw material?  We would suggest, where the bargaining position allows it, that businesses negotiate preferential, or at least pro rata, treatment in the event of shortage of supply from their suppliers.  All the support required needs to be contractually documented.

Insurance for business interruption is also available by adding it to other insurances, but be aware that the loss covered can be narrower than the events likely to be covered in a standard force majeure clause.

For further advice on commercial contracts and business continuity in particular, please contact our Corporate and Commercial Team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

You can also save your business a lot of time and money if legal issues are approached in the correct way from the beginning of the process. It is far simpler to sort out legal issues at the outset rather than later, when problems and the consequences of poor decisions can be expensive to resolve.

There are many common legal mistakes made by businesses, whether at the stage of signing a lease for business premises and finding unexpected rent increases or hidden charges, or when setting up the legal structure of a business. Before completing a sale, it may be worth trying to negotiate an overlap period so that there is time to become familiar with a business before fully taking over.

You and your business purchase solicitor will need to check and verify all the information on which your offer is based. After you reach an agreement on the price and terms of sale, you will still have to meet certain conditions for the sale to complete and of course even at this stage the deal could still fall through.

Choosing the right solicitor is an important part of the process, a business purchase solicitor with experience of the issues involved, can help you through the procedure.

Myers Lister Price business purchase solicitors specialise in assisting our clients in negotiating and purchasing businesses. Please contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

The review will look at the law that allows married couples and civil partners to claim financial provision when they divorce or dissolve their partnership. In particular the level at which one party is required to meet the other’s financial needs and what happens to non-matrimonial property. Non-matrimonial property includes property that has been acquired by either party before a marriage or civil partnership, or received by either party as a gift or inheritance.

The Law Commissioner responsible for family law is reported to have said that it is vital that the law assists couples to resolve their financial arrangements as quickly and fairly as possible. Matrimonial solicitors will no doubt agree that clarity and predictability would be helpful in these areas.

It is understood that the Commission will not be carrying out a full review of the law of financial orders, the purpose is to clarify two areas of that law which can cause uncertainty and inconsistent conclusions. The review is an addition to the Commission’s current project on Marital Property Agreements and the time scale will be extended to allow the additional review to take place. A final report is expected sometime in 2013.

In the interim matrimonial solicitors are likely to receive a supplementary consultation paper later this year so that any reform of the law is informed by the legal profession and those who are affected by the inadequacies in the present system.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to support you through the difficulties of a relationship breakdown. If you need advice on any aspect of divorce or dissolving a partnership then contact our team of experienced matrimonial solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Investigations into the financial arrangements of a South London GP have revealed a trail of deception and massive losses for his victims.

Investigators were told that one victim gave the GP over £100,000 which he used to purchase a buy-to-let property. The victim had been working in the GP’s medical practice for eight years and agreed to share the purchase of the house because she didn’t have enough funds to buy it on her own.

She expected that her name would be added to the deeds of the property but it was bought in the GP’s name only. The victim had not taken any advice from a written agreement solicitor and she had no documentation or written evidence of their shared ownership.

Another victim, a patient of 20 years, was persuaded to buy a property with the GP using a lump sum from a house sale. Although it had been suggested by others that she should get legal advice this was ignored and she gave the GP money. The patient assumed she was part owner of the house and although the GP had given her a receipt for the money an internet search at a later date showed that the house had been registered in his wife’s name.

The patient challenged this but was persuaded that a trust document would resolve the issue, this was also signed without legal advice. A later search showed a charge had been put on the house by the Bank due to the GP’s debts and solicitors advised that the the agreement meant that the mortgage, debts and legal fees had to be paid before the house could be sold.

These shocking examples demonstrate the danger of entering into any financial arrangements without consulting a written agreement solicitor.

Myers Lister Price solicitors can help with any legal matters relating to written agreements and contracts. Please contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Nice idea in principle, however, a few legal questions arise from the use of the site:-

1. Does “Pinning” other people’s images onto your pin board amount to copyright infringement…? and
2. If so, who is the infringer, you as the end-user, or Pinterest?

Nobody really knows is the answer…!!

Legally speaking, copyright infringement is committed each time  an image which is protected by copyright © is reproduced by a third party without the copyright owner’s consent.  So in theory, anyone uploading images to Pinterest is committing breach of copyright. The courts are however yet to put this theory into practice and the law is unclear on who the infringer will be.

Pinterest have however been very sneaky in adding an indemnity into their standard terms of conditions stating that if they are sued for copyright infringement as a result of an act of an end-user, that end-user must indemnify them in respect of all costs associated with that claim!

This indemnity has lead to several users removing their “pin” board in an attempt to force pinterest to change their terms:-

http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52558:pinterest-terms-worry-users

They will need all the help they can get with that campaign, as whilst the law continues to be unclear on the legality of Pinterest’s activities, the indemnity will be there to stay.

If you have any queries on copyright infringement and the enforcement of indemnities, please contact the commercial team at MLP Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Courts are willing to stop Ministers making decisions they do not have the power to make.

This week the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision regarding a challenge by Friends of the Earth, Homesun and Solarcentury (“the Claimants”)  for Judicial Review in relation to the decision by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to introduce retrospective changes to the Feed-in Tariff rates for solar PV.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change published a paper in October 2011 which explained that falling costs combined with rising electricity prices, meant that returns to PV generators installed in people’s homes were higher than anticipated. He therefore suggested that from 1 April 2012 a reduced tariff would have to take effect and would, illogically, apply to those households who had the system installed on or after 12 December 2011, despite the consultation period being open until 23 December 2011.

The Claimant’s brought this matter before the High Court in December 2011 and the court found in their favour, ruling that the Secretary of State’s proposal was unlawful.

The Secretary of State, concerned that this ruling would encourage more people to install solar PVs before the changes came into force, sought permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. This appeal concerned whether the Secretary of State was acting ulta vires (beyond the limits of his powers). The Court of Appeal refused the appeal and concluded that Section 41 of the Energy Act 2008 did not give the Secretary of State the power to make changes which reduced the rate of payment fixed by reference to an installation becoming eligible prior to modification. The Secretary if State has said he will appeal to the Supreme Court.

A 21p rate is likely to come into effect from April for solar PV installations which become eligible for FITs on or after 3 March 2012.

MLP Solicitors advise a number of North West companies who operate in the green energy market. We provide advice on advice on regulatory matters; competition; intellectual property; company incorporation; mergers and acquisitions and employment. If you would like more information about this please contact the Corporate and Commercial department on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

In the majority of divorce cases, family courts decide to leave children with their mothers and for a long time campaigners have argued that, without a legal right to see their children, fathers can be excluded. Changes to the law are intended to make sure that fathers get better access to their children after the break down of a marriage.

A ministerial working group will be announced shortly with the remit of deciding how the Children’s Act 1989 needs to be amended. With these changes it is anticipated that family law solicitors and judges ruling on custody disputes will be able to ensure more equal access for both parents. The working group may also be consider whether grandparents should have rights to see their grandchildren after a divorce.

Chair of the Family Justice Review Mr David Norgrove had originally proposed a right to equal access in law for both parents but this was not included in his final report last November. Mr Norgrove has criticised the governments plans to change the law when his review had concluded that the law should not be changed.

Some family law solicitors have also questioned whether the changes will be of benefit as a ‘legal guarantee of equal access’ is not practical or desirable in many cases. The view already held by the courts is that children have a right to see both parents and that children almost always benefit from seeing both parents.

Myers Lister Price Family Law Solicitors specialise in family and divorce law. If you need advice on a family legal matter such as custody rights then lease contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Mr Cameron is expected to unveil a new initiative that will make use of many Government buildings that lie empty or have space available as they await buyers. Officials have suggested that space will be made available on “flexible short-term arrangements” until the buildings are sold.

The Government is anticipated to make available around 300 buildings at one year low rates, to give a boost to new companies trying to establish themselves.

According to Companies House figures, small business formations are on the rise in the UK and at the beginning of 2012 registration of businesses increased by over 10% compared to the same period the previous year.

A recent survey conducted by Business Centric Services Group suggests that just under half of the UK’s small business owners are motivated by the wish to become their own boss.

Could a business formations solicitors help you turn your business dreams into reality? Whether it is to work from home, avoid the daily commute, become an expert in a new field or the challenge of new career, there are may reasons why people are choosing to start a new business.

If you are thinking about setting up a new business, contact Myers Lister Price our business formations solicitors can advise you on the legal and regulatory issues that need to be considered. Please contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Huws Gray has bought Laycocks Timber Merchants in Wigan increasing the company’s portfolio in the north west area after the successful addition of Ainscough Building Supplies in Wrightington nearly two years ago.

The chairman for Huws Gray, John Llewelyn Jones, is reported to have said that the company are confident that they can strengthen their position in Wigan. He believes that the combined knowledge and experience of the existing staff at Laycocks, allied with Huws Gray and substantial investment will improve the branch and the service offered to customers.

Acquisitions solicitors acting for Anglesey-based Huws Gray’s building suppliers were pleased to assist Huw’s Grays move forward their expansion plans and sees further progress for the company.

The firm is also committed to staff development with the opening of a new training centre at Mochdre, near Colwyn Bay which is in addition to their existing training facilities at Queensferry.

Terry Owen, Huws Gray’s managing director, is excited about the company’s resolution to invest in a comprehensive training and development programme for all staff, he believes this will not only benefit the staff but also the improve long term health of the company.

The acquisitions solicitors representing Huws Gray has no doubt that businesses that have the resources can take advantage of the many good acquisition opportunities that are available at present.

If you would like legal assistance regarding any matter related to a company acquisition then please contact our specialist Commercial team at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

The legal rules that apply to a termination vary and the effect of termination may vary accordingly. The usual remedy for a breach of contract is for the party that defaults to pay damages but in some cases one party may have the right to terminate the contract.

In the case of property contracts, it is often difficult to put the parties back in the position they were in before the contract. There are cases where a breach in contract can make a property worthless to a buyer if for example work agreed to be carried out, in the sale contract, has not been completed.

A contract solicitor should be consulted when there is a breakdown in a contract as the amount of damages payable will depend on whether a contract is eventually rescinded or terminated. The correct approach will depend on whether a contract is terminated because of an express provision in the agreement, or simply under breach rules at common law.

The Litigation Team at Myers Lister Price Solicitors have many years experience in working with and advising businesses and individuals on Contractual Disputes. If you need advice from a contract solicitor, we can advise you on how to solve your dispute in the most effective manner. Contact us on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Nearly eight years ago Mr Hopkinson, a former partner with a Birmingham law firm, acted as a consultant in the negotiations for over 200 acres of land at the former Biwater Works in Clay Cross, Derbyshire.

Mr Hopkinson became a minority shareholder in the Clay Cross development company but began to worry that the success of the Derbyshire site was being used to prop up other schemes that were less successful, particularly when investments in commercial property became more difficult.

Over the last four years the site has been going through an extensive demolition and re-mediation programme and is now prepared for re-development. Outline planning consent has been granted for 1,000 residential units, 30,000 square metres of commercial space and a hotel on the site.

Mr Hopkinson’s decision to instruct shareholder disputes lawyers came as the majority shareholders voted to end his directorships within the group. He had previously been in negotiations for the buy out of his minority shareholding having decided to withdraw from Maximus over his concerns about the Clay Cross development site.

Mr Hopkinson is reported to have said that litigation now appeared to be the only way to resolve issues, a reported statement from Maximus said that they would defend any litigation but an earlier offer to buy Mr Hopkins out was still on the negotiating table.

It is anticipated that shareholder disputes lawyers will be issuing proceedings in the near future.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors regularly work with individual shareholders and directors of corporations to resolve company related disputes. For expert advice contact our litigation team at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The basketball legend has been known by the Chinese name “Qiaodan” since becoming well known in China in the1980′s. He has discovered that a Chinese sportswear company has been using this name, his famous number 23 and even his children’s names to promote the “Qiaodan Sports Company Limited”. In order to preserve ownership of the Michael Jordan name and brand he has filed a law suit against the company. It is understood that he is not seeking monetary damages but hopes the action will prevent further use of his name and reputation without consent.

A trademark solicitor will need to show evidence of reputation and also to demonstrate consumer confusion due to the use of the name, in the case of Michael Jordan this should not be too difficult to prove. Other well known athletes have recently won disputes relating to registration of trademarks in China, referring to Trademark Law that protects the prior rights of others and Civil laws that protect a persons name and right of reputation.

The need for a trademark solicitor is increasing in the commercial world as famous name branding can be very lucrative.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you protect your company trademarks and help you settle any trademark disputes. If you need advice about any trademark issues contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The legal battle goes back to 2005 when the children’s solicitors presented a judicial review of the Home Office’s policy. The policy allowed immigration officers to detain child asylum-seekers as adults without properly assessing their age.

The Home Office changed the law in response to the judicial review, but it took until 2010 before they formally admitted that the children had been unlawfully locked-up in adult detention centres.

Due to a recent freedom of information request, it has now been revealed that 40 children had been unlawfully detained and the Home Office agreed to pay over £1m in compensation and a further £1m in legal costs.

The Refugee Council has advised that children are still wrongly being held in adult detention centres, in spite of the change in the law. The charity has worked with nearly 50 children, in the last two years, who have been detained as adults and later acknowledged to be children.

The chief executive of the Refugee Council suggested that better training needs to be given to people assessing the age of asylum seekers and that children are still being detained because of flaws in the system.

The children’s solicitors are reported to have said that it is obvious that vulnerable children who have done nothing other than to seek help should not be locked up by the state.

If you require advice or assistance regarding legal issues surrounding child maintenance please contact our family law solicitors at, Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The scheme is intended to allow couples to resolve family disputes out of court by enabling them to appoint an experienced family lawyer specifically trained to arbitrate under the scheme. It is expected that the scheme will allow couples to resolve financial issues such as inheritance claims arising from a divorce, either in the UK or abroad.

However it will not provide a way of obtaining a divorce nor will it deal with where children live after parents separate or child contact issues. Whilst it has been suggested that family arbitration rulings will be binding under the Arbitration Act 1996 it may be necessary to have the arbitrator’s ruling confirmed by the courts before it is final.

The launch of this scheme may be seen by some as an timely alternative when withdrawal of legal aid for divorce cases is threatened. However divorce solicitors in the UK may be concerned that the scheme is not supported by statute and therefore could potentially allow an alternative system of family justice to develop. For example a religious group could operate a similar arbitration system which would give concern about the effect of religion on equality under the law.

The coming months will the see development and use of this new scheme and its effect on how a divorce solicitor’s role could change.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to support you through the difficulties of family break up. If you need advice on any aspect of divorce or family law contact our team of experienced family lawyers at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The fund, managed by venture capital firm SPARK Impact, has recently given two medical company’s, Westco Medical and ESP Technology, valuable investment support for development of medical technology.

Venture Capital solicitors have been advising Westco Medical, a healthcare solutions provider based in Greasby. The company has received £50,000 to develop a device that helps position feeding tubes in the stomachs of hospital patients who are unable to feed themselves. Westco is now looking for a licensing partner to help launch the product.

ESP Technology, based at the Daresbury Science And Innovation Campus has also had £50,000 confirmed investment to develop a polymer coating which it is hoped will increase the lifespan of artificial blood vessels used in haemodialysis.

The biomedical fund is part of the well backed North West Fund that has been set up to help small and medium-sized entrepreneurial firms in the region. These latest deals are the 10th and 11th investments agreed by Sparks Impact, venture capital solicitors are already advising pharmaceutical development company Evgen in the next round of funding.

SPARK’s senior investment director is reported to have said that they are seeing a lot of business opportunities to invest in and have a number of deals which are expected to complete before the end of 2012, in the second year of investment in the North West.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you with venture capital investments such as the opportunities presented by the North West Fund. If you have any queries then contact our team of highly trained specialist solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Financial Ombudsman Service is also seeing an increase in deceit such as one party emptying a joint savings account or spending money that was for mortgage payments without the other party knowing. Partners or spouses have also been seen to run up debt on credit cards held in the other partner’s name or increase existing debts without discussion with their partner.

Around five percent of all mortgage complaints brought before the financial ombudsman relate to one party borrowing additional money against a mortgage without the other party knowing.

Whilst many couples pay their mortgages from a joint account which they both pay into, it is also quite common for one partner to deal with the financial transactions, often receiving monthly payments from the other partner for their share.

With a joint account it is easy for both partners to check that payments for mortgages and other bills are going out but it can take some time for one partner to discover that the other has not made payments if a joint account is not set up.

This is not a new phenomenon for divorce lawyers but in difficult financial times the build up of debt by one partner, without the other partner knowing, seems to be on the increase. Many couples are not aware of the legal implications and in some circumstances each partner is liable for the full debt if the other cannot or will not pay.

With the typical increase in numbers of divorce and separation cases, just after Christmas, divorce lawyers are also seeing an increase in unwelcome financial surprises.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to support you through the difficulties of divorce. If you need advice on any aspect of divorce or family law contact our team of experienced family lawyers at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

It has been reported that an out-of-court settlement has been agreed and a recent statement by the England Cricket Board has confirmed that the dispute between IMG and has been resolved.

The dispute centred around an email sent by Mr Clarke to the Board of Control for Cricket in India, almost three years ago, in which it was alleged that there were meetings in Mumbai between IMG, former Indian Premier League commissioner and county officials to plan a new Twenty20 league in England. Mr Clarke believed the intent was to set up a rebel league that would be detrimental to domestic cricket.

When the email was published IMG saw this as a public accusation that it was working outside the remit of an official sporting body and with damage to the IMG company reputation solicitors issued libel proceedings.

In the recent statement it was reported that Mr Clarke accepted that IMG did not act in breach of International Cricket Council rules and had intended to act within the official structures of world cricket. IMG has accepted that Mr Clarke had not intended to deliberately damage the reputation of the company and on that basis there is an agreement to settle the litigation on confidential terms.

Whilst company reputation solicitors may have brought this argument to a close it is understood that Lalit Modi is still planning to pursue a separate legal action against Mr Clarke. It is anticipated that Mr Clarke is likely to be re-elected unopposed for a third term as chairman of the ECB.

If you need advice regarding a dispute about your company reputation solicitors at Myers Lister Price are here to help you. Contact our experienced team by telephone on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Apple claims that Proview sold the iPad trademark rights where as Proview suggest that Apple bought them from a subsidiary company and as a consequence the rights were never transferred. It has also been suggested that the Chinese companies founder, Yang Rongshan, has denied any knowledge of the subsidiary having sold the trademark rights, and that in any case they did not have permission to do this.

It has now been reported that Apple has threatened to sue the Chinese firm for defamation and accuses the company’s founder and commercial contract solicitors of making misleading statements to the media. Correspondence between the Chinese company and a U.K.-based company, set up by Apple to acquire the iPad trademark rights, are claimed to show that Yang Rongshan was aware of trademark talks between the two companies and the offer to buy the trademark was negotiated and accepted by Proview’s company headquarters.

Proview is understood to be requesting that the Chinese authorities ban Apple from selling iPads in China and a Chinese court has recently ruled that electronics merchants should stop sales of the tablet because of trademark infringements. The dispute between commercial contract solicitors will no doubt continue with the rights to such a saleable commodity at stake.

Myers Lister Price Solicitors are here to help you create good commercial contracts and help you settle commercial contract disputes. Contact our commercial contract solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

“The Family Corleone” is an unpublished screenplay written by the author of “The Godfather”, Mario Puzo.

Paramount has released a statement saying it is concerned about damage to ”the integrity and reputation of the ‘Godfather’ trilogy, one of the most acclaimed and beloved artistic works of the past 50 years”.

The trademark consists of the words “The Godfather” and a hand holding puppet strings. Paramount said the Puzo estate plans to use the trademarks without it’s agreement. The claim continues…

(Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Puzo, 12-CV-1268, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan))

Although it cannot supply horses heads, the Intellectual Property Department at MLP Solicitors can provide licences, agreements, applications for registration of IP, letters before action, undertakings and injunctions to deter those who who seek to infringe their clients IP. For more info on Intellectual Property contact our IP solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Britain’s Energy Coast is a group of organisations that came together incorporating the West Cumbria Development Fund, Westlakes Properties Ltd and Britain’s Energy Coast West Cumbria and the West Cumbria Development Agency.

The latter are a team that support small and medium enterprises starting-up and growing with their Linkstart and Backing Business programmes. The programmes are aimed at those who would like to start up a business and existing small or medium enterprises that could be helped to achieve their goals by a fresh point of view.

The organisation is also working with the University of Manchester’s Dalton Nuclear Institute to help new and existing businesses develop renewable energy products and services. The University has recently opened a new £20m research base in West Cumbria and it is anticipated that the Dalton Cumbrian Facility will help and promote products and new technologies, such as Anaerobic Digestion and Biomass, from development through to the commercial market.

These technologies are not yet thought of as mainstream in the UK but with the support of Manchester, the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and Britain’s Energy Coast they could be the focus of investment in new companies and products.

If you thinking of starting up your own business, or expanding your business enterprise, sme solicitors can guide you through the procedures and help turn your business dream into a successful reality.

At Myers Lister Price, our highly experienced team of lawyers can advise you on business structure, contracts, insurances, property, employment and other issues that need to be considered when setting up or expanding a business. For more information contact our Corporate and Commercial Lawyers on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

How does it work?

A licence agreement is agreed between the parties which deals not only with the rights to be licensed but also with the exact nature of the licence, how royalties are payable and any other conditions.

In this case LG benefit by receiving coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio and Microsoft benefit by receiving an income from each and every sale of an LG mobile device that runs the Android or Chrome OS platform. Microsoft currently makes $3.5 million – $10.5 million every day from Android and Chrome operated phones.

So profitable is the licencing of its IP that Microsoft has now entered into more than 1,100 licencing agreements.

Although happy, under certain terms, to grant a licence over its patent portfolio, Microsoft has no problem litigating against manufactures who have not signed up on a licencing agreement and agreed to their terms. One such example of this is its on going lawsuits against Motorola who currently do not pay a royalty for the privilege of making smart phone devices using the Android or Chrome platform.

Myers Lister Price Intellectual Property Team specialise not only in protecting intellectual property but also maximising its value through the use of licences and agreements. If you would like to investigate the option of licencing you intellectual property then our Intellectual Property team would be happy to discuss this with you. Please contact Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Whilst the case impacts heavily on the solar power tariff industry, the decision centred on the key issue of whether the government has the power to make retrospective changes.  The decision reminds all public bodies that when considering changes to schemes, the starting point has to be any enabling legislation.

In the Court of Appeal’s view, the government’s proposal was unlawful because the Energy Act 2008 and secondary legislation does not provide for a rate that might fluctuate according to the decisions of the secretary of state.

In contrast, it held, that owners of solar installations are entitled to subsidies at a rate set by reference to the year in which the installation becomes eligible.  The overall thrust of government policy that tariffs should be cut from this April is unaffected by this decision. In practice, the decision only really affects installations that became eligible over a short period of time.

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change v Friends of the Earth and Others (25 January 2012; (2012) EWCA Civ 28)

For advice on feed in tariffs, advice on energy supply agreements or the energy sector in general please contact Stephen Attree or Awena Parry in our commercial department on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Why? Because they own share options in the internet phenomenon that is Facebook, who plans to raise $5billion by launching an initial public offering of stock in the Spring. In the early days the Company issued options to employees in an effort to create incentives but also simply because cashflow was low.  For many this will bear a strong similarity to 2004 when Google went to market with its $1.67 billion IPO. This saw secretaries, a company masseuse and a company chef all become millionaires.

Share options give the holder the right to buy or sell shares in a given company at a previously set price regardless of the current market rate. As soon as Facebook is listed those holding stock options will be able to buy stock at the previously agreed price and then sell them immediately at the market rate. (Then buy a yacht and spend the rest of their days floating around the Caribbean!).

It is clear why employees benefit from stock options but what are the advantages for employers? By issuing stock options a company is able to: make their employees feel like part of the business and therefore more involved with the growth and performance; employ individuals who may be financially out of their reach but who will help the company improve; (and for start up companies specifically) preserve cashflow when money is tight.

If you would like some advice on stock options and other ways of helping your company’s money stretch further then please contact the Corporate and Commercial Department at Myer Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The code has been revised in an effort to provide greater protection from rogue bailiffs who use unsound, unsafe or unfair methods. The key points the updated code deals with are intimidating and threatening behaviour, misrepresentation of their powers and reinforcing rules about how firms should resolve complaints about rogue agents.

Mister Djanogly of the Ministry of Justice stated “Whilst I know the majority of bailiffs are responsible, too many are not. We often hear stories, and see evidence, of people being mistreated by heavy-handed bailiffs. We are working with the bailiff industry, and other groups, to make sure that cannot happen anymore, but also that people can still collect their debts fairly.”

The code is only voluntary and it remains on the Government’s agenda to impose statutory regulation.

For more information contact our litigation lawyers on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

• Some claims will not be responded to entitling the claimant to judgment in default;
• Some claims will be determined early because an application prior to trial. Applications bringing the matter to a close can include a party obtaining summary judgment, because the merits of the other party’s claim are so low. Other ways to strike out a party’s claim include security for costs and unless orders;
• Some claims will settle between the parties. Routes to settlement include written offers, round table meetings and mediation.

For those cases that do go to trial, the statistics identify the average number of weeks for the matter to proceed from issue to determination at trial.  You can see how your local county court performs by going to their website.

For more information on civil disputes call our Litigation team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The figures do not come as much of a surprise. There has been a steady increase in the number of cohabiting couples for a number of years. However, there is a great deal of ignorance about the legal rights and obligations which cohabiting couples have. For fathers, it can mean that they do not have parental responsibility for their children if they have not been named as the father when the birth is registered. For children born before 1 December 2003 the position is even worse as even those fathers who are registered do not acquire parental responsibility. This means that there is no legal right to have a say in decisions regarding a child’s upbringing such as choice of school, choice of religion or even consent to medical treatment, amongst other things.

Although parental responsibility does not have any direct impact on who a child should live with or what the contact arrangements are, it is something which should be addressed. If both parents agree, it is simply a matter of completing a Parental Responsibility Agreement and registering it.

The other major difference relates to financial arrangements. Cohabiting couples are under no obligation to maintain each other, there is no right to seek a share of the other’s pension and rights in relation to property are severely limited compared to married couples.  The “common law wife” does not exist and it never has!

Increasingly, couples are seeking to make their own arrangements in the absence of a satisfactory statutory framework, by entering into a cohabitation agreement. Such agreements can regulate maintenance, property ownership and other financial issues. They are a cost effective way of planning ahead and with the government already having signalled its intention not to change the law relating to cohabiting couples in the lifetime of this Parliament, are likely to become much more popular in the future.

If you would like to know more about cohabitation legal rights call us on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill, which has been introduced to address the increasing number of complaints against onshore wind turbines, is currently being reviewed by the House of Lords. The Bill will provide a minimum distance that wind turbines must be located away from residential premises.

The company commercial team at Myers Lister Price solicitors advise a range of clients in the energy sector – established and innovative high growth companies in wind turbine, solar power and other green energy initiatives.  We also advise on energy supply agreements for commercial and industrial users of energy.

For more information on how we can help you with all aspects of business law please contact our commercial Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

There are good Will Writers out there and there are also a lot of bad ones, but how do you know if they are any good?

The problems with a badly drafted Will only raise their ugly head once the person in question dies. This leaves the grieving family with uncertanty, further stress and cost to the administration of the estate.

Solicitors all have professional indeminty insurance so that if the Will was drafted poorly and their is negligence on the part of the solicitor then the family of the deceased can sue for any loss suffered and the cost of rectifying the situation. This is not ideal but at least there is some action to be taken to rectify the problems created by a poorly drafted Will. Will writers on the other hand do not have to have such insurance and so should there be anything wrong there maybe be little that can be done to rectify the situation.

There are stats that show only 30% of the population have Wills and of those who have them 25% of the Wills are negligently drafted!

My advise therefore is to make a Will and get a specialist Wills solicitor to do so, this will assist in the smooth running of events after your death.

For more advice on Wills, Trusts & Probate contact our Wills team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

What exactly is a net estate?  A net estate is the money that is left in your estate after all of your debts, funeral expenses and taxes have been paid.  Betty’s net estate is above the inheritance tax limit, currently £325,000 and so Betty’s executors will have paid inheritance tax at 40% on all of her assets above this limit.

There are a number of ways to reduce inheritance tax and this can be done through careful estate planning.  If you have assets that you are confident you will no longer need then it is possible to give assets away during your lifetime so as to reduce your inheritance tax bill.  There are consequences in doing this so please ensure that you speak to a member of our Wills, Trusts and Probate team before making any decisions.

Betty also left her estate to close friends.  If Betty had not left a Will then the Intestacy Rules will have applied to her estate which means her chosen beneficiaries, her friends, would not have benefited.  It is extremely important that you prepare a Will so that you decide what happens to your estate after you have died.

We are qualified specialists in estate planning and we are here to help you discuss your estate and help you plan for the future.  Please feel free to contact a member of the Wills, Trusts and Probate team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

CF Partners, who are a UK advisory and trading firm claim to have gone to Barclays in September 2008 to discuss whether the British bank could provide financing for a deal with Tricorona, a Stockholm company with a portfolio of carbon credits in the area of hydro power projects.

In their business purchase law case which was filed in the High Court October 2011, CF Partners allege that when their deal with Tricorona stalled, Barclays used CF’s work to pursue its own deal with the Swedish company. In July 2010, Barclays paid £98 million for a 85 per cent stake in Tricorona.

Discussions with Tricorona and Barclays, as a potential lender and adviser, collapsed in November 2008, according to the claim. CF claim they remained committed to pursuing a transaction but they did not signed a formal letter of engagement with the British bank. Their claims states “CF Partners provided Barclays with a single, composite piece of information, namely the fact that Tricorona was an attractive and available takeover/purchase prospect”.

CF issued a statement saying “We have never taken legal action before and have only commenced litigation after very serious consideration,” CF further added “We have instigated these proceedings only after attempts to directly resolve the matter and having taken detailed advice from external counsel.”

Barclays said CF’s business purchase law case was “without merit” and is to be contested “vigorously” by the bank. “Barclays had no contractual relationship with CF Partners and did not enter into any advisory mandate,” the bank said.

For more information on how we can help you with all aspects of business law please contact our commercial Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The aim of this scheme is to give people greater control over their choice of GPs. Such choice will allow people to register, or simply use as a one off, GPs located near their work, school or former home.

As Andrew Lansley said “patients should have the freedom to choose a GP practice that suits their lives, and not be restricted by geographical boundaries”. The funding for consultation only patients has currently been capped at £2m .

Our Healthcare Team at Myers Lister Price advises GPs on a whole range of issues including Partnership Agreements, wills, property matters and disputes.

For more information about how this scheme might be relevant to you or your practice please contact our Healthcare Team on 0161 926 1579 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The government appointed David Norgrove to conduct a family justice review in 2010. The final report was delivered in November 2011. It rejected the idea that there should be a change to the law to insert a presumption of shared parenting. However, the government appears to have rejected that conclusion and is now set to legislate.

In practice, will such a change make that much difference? Shared parenting does not necessarily mean that a child spends equal amounts of time with each parent. What is a court to do where one parent makes serious allegations about the other? Does it allow contact to continue until the allegations are proven? That would seem to be a potentially dangerous approach and I would suggest that in reality the court will adopt a similar approach as it does at present, ensuring that a child is protected until a full investigation can be carried out.

It is, of course, early days but the indication is that the government is determined to push this through.  Personally, I think it is too early to say what impact this will have. It may well help to push home the message that children should have relationships with both parents. However, each family’s circumstances are different and there is no “one size fits all approach”. Arrangements which are right for one set of parents will not be appropriate for another. Work and personal commitments vary as do the needs of a child so I cannot see a prescriptive approach working.

The family justice system continues to struggle with a large caseload and substantial delays in the preparation of reports and in bringing cases to a conclusion. Not until these issues are addressed are we likely to see any real change in the public’s perception of the process.

If you would like more information on the above contact our childrens solicitor team at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Buying a business can be a great opportunity to strengthen your market position, diversify into new markets and accelerate growth. But it can also be a high-risk step, investing substantial amounts of money into a business that could produce nasty surprises.

The key to success is to find out as much as you can about the business you are buying, protect yourself against the main risks and convince the vendor to sell to you for a good price. A business purchase lawyer will help plan your offer and establish a valuation for the business you are acquiring.

Buying a business is a complex task which requires skill and experience to identify potential pitfalls and to provide innovative solutions. Buying a business is nearly always more complex in practice than it seems over an initial meeting. Good legal advice at an early stage is essential to avoid valuable time and money being lost. The volume of issues which will need to be considered when making a business purchase are vast. The repercussions of failing to meet certain legal obligations make appointing a highly skilled and competent law firm vital.

Most business purchases are as TOGC’s (Transfer of a Business as a Going Concern) and transactions include apportionment of purchase price, title of business property, debtors and creditors, restrictive covenants, stock-in-trade; employees, accounts and accounting procedures, trade marks, vehicles and equipment, supply contracts, business finance and tax.

Myers Lister Price business purchase lawyers can advise and assist, in a cost effective way through an entire business purchase. We can identify and deal appropriately with any relevant issues. We can ensure legal formalities are accurately completed and any financial issues have been considered with your best interests in mind. We look beyond a single transaction and always ensure there are no issues which might cause problems at a future date.

For more information on buying a business please contact our business purchase lawyers at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Analysis by Jane’s, the defence journal, suggests ministers have seriously underestimated how difficult and expensive it will be to cancel the 500 equipment contracts specified in last year’s strategic defence and security review.

Only a handful of the contracts identified have so far been successfully cancelled. All 500 are supposed to be ended by 2015. Only 30 of the contracts, attached to two of the UK’s biggest defence programmes, the Harrier and Nimrod aircraft, have been terminated so far.

Guy Anderson, chief analyst at Jane’s said: “By any measure, progress has been slow. The main problem is that the MoD needed to find out exactly what it was committed to, what the terms were, and what stages the contracts had reached. They have spent the last year going through the paperwork.”

The process is also likely to cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds because of rules governing equipment contracts handed to British companies. Many companies are retaining the services of specialist contract dispute solicitors to assist in their fight to claim every penny they are due under the terms of their initial contract. Whereas most used to settle early and on favourable terms to stay on-side with their main customer, they now have less incentive to do so as they know that the coalition’s austerity drive means there are few new contracts in the pipeline.

Jim Murphy, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, attacked the department for refusing to release precise figures on how many contracts had been cancelled and how much money had been set aside to settle contract disputes.

If you have a legal issue that is related to a contract then please get in touch with our Commercial Law Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Depending on circumstances, separation agreements allow a couple to stay married and leave open the possibility of reconciliation. If you choose to have a separation agreement drawn up or a financial order is made, this can hasten things if you do finally decide on divorce. For couple who wish to separate but who are not quite ready to divorce, a separation agreement allows arrangements to be made for children and financial affairs.

As well as avoiding any religious implications, some faiths disapprove of divorce, legal separation could make sense if you have been married for a relatively short time as it is not possible to commence divorce proceedings during the first year of marriage.

Separation agreements can deal with financial arrangements in both the short and long term and can also deal with matters relating to children. In relation to financial matters, if there has been full and frank financial disclosure between the parties, both have had the opportunity to take legal advice and neither party has been put under pressure to sign the agreement then, that agreement will be upheld in any future divorce and financial remedy proceedings.

For more information on separation agreements, divorce or dissolution please contact our divorce lawyers, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Michelle Mone, co-owner of MJM International Ltd (including the Ultimo lingerie brand) is just one of the many business owners announcing a marriage breakup following the Christmas and New Year’s break. Divorce can be a complicated process, particularly for business owners such as Mone, who founded her company in 1996 with her husband of 19 years, and is one of the UK’s most successful businesswomen.

Due to the financial crisis many businesses are suffering. Among divorce lawyers there are competing theories about the effect of an economic downturn on relationship breakdown.

One is that at times of economic uncertainty, which can include negative equity, job security and the inability to fund two homes, couples are reluctant to introduce further instability into their lives by separating. The other is that the financial pressures of recessionary times can actually pressure some to strategically end a relationship in order to secure a more favourable settlement.

Business owners may not only be looking at the New Year dissolution of their marriage but also the division of their business assets. When quantifying what is in the ‘marital pot’, the value of any business asset is likely to be taken into account and it is essential that business owners are well informed about protecting and distributing their business assets during the difficult times of a separation.

For more information on divorce, separation or dissolution please contact our divorce lawyers, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The protocol was commonly used by parties but was not adopted by the Courts in the Civil Procedure Rules. It has however, now been adopted by the Civil Procedure Rules with effect from 1 January 2012. The significance of the adoption is that there can be sanctions for failure to follow the protocol before issuing court proceedings. Sanctions generally take the form of cost penalties against the defaulting party or varying the rate of interest on damages awarded.

If you want to know more about the above contact Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Microsoft alleges that Comet copied and sold 94,000 copies of Windows XP and Windows Vista recovery CDs. The CDs were sold to customers who were buying PCs and laptops with Windows already loaded on, for them to use if the software needed reinstalling.

Microsoft has alleged that the discs were reproduced without permission or a licence. Comet has taken legal advice however, and is confident that it has not breached any intellectual property rights. Both Microsoft and Comet have said that they were acting in the best interests of their customers.

Comet is due to be sold by Kesa Electricals PLC to OpCapita in February for a nominal sum of £1 for Comet itself and another £1 for Triptych Insurance, which provides warranties for Comet’s goods. What’s worse Kesa also had to invest £50m in Comet and retain liability for the pension scheme. The high street retailer has had a very hard year and these allegations may well turn out to be the final nail in the coffin.

If you are concerned about the use of your intellectual property then please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our corporate and commercial solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or by e-mail at info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Through the Red Tape challenge website, the Prime minister has said that entrepreneurs will have a chance to have a say in how the government could help launch new businesses. The government say that they understand that how new style business models may fall foul of regulations that were intended for another age.

David Cameron said: ‘Today I can announce we’re expanding the Red Tape Challenge, so it doesn’t just cover the red tape that affects businesses today, but the businesses of tomorrow too. Because we’ve heard from start-ups that they’re innovating so fast, their innovations are out-stripping the regulation that currently exists’.

‘At its simplest deregulation has got to be about making it easier to start a business and making it easier to employ people. And I’m determined to do both’.

There are serious issues to think about before going ahead and forming a company. At Myers Lister Price our specialist team of business formations solicitors understand the complexity of business formation and will help you work through and resolve all issues that arise.

We will keep you abreast of all changes in law related to forming a business and will guide you through all the steps and procedures which must be followed. Our business formations solicitors are here to help at every stage of the process.

If you require legal advice or assistance from our business formations solicitors please contact our Commercial legal team, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Swiss group’s challenge failed this week after the registrar at the UK Intellectual Property Office ruled in Cadbury’s favour. The IPO said that Cadbury had showed enough “distinctive character” for a trademark and that Cadbury had provided significant evidence of its long-term use of the colour, employed since 1914.

One legal expert said that while this is an interim judgment of the trade mark law case, the decision was unlikely to be changed in the final report. Nestlé can appeal the decision.

Cadbury have the right to trademark the colour for packaging its chocolate in bar and tablet form as well as eating and drinking chocolate. However following Nestlé’s objections, the trademark use does not include chocolate cakes, confectionery or chocolate assortments. This ruling has meant that Nestlé can continue to use a similar purple colour in its Quality Street assortment.

A spokesman for Cadbury said the group was “pleased” with the ruling, he added that the colour was something those at the company “jealously guard”.
In his ruling, Allan James, the registrar, said the colour purple had built a distinctive character associated with Cadbury and he rejected the claims that Cadbury had registered the colour in bad faith as “absurd”. The IPO’s final ruling on this trade mark law case will come “in due course”.

A Nestlé spokesperson of this trade mark law case: “We are awaiting the final decision. In its interim decision the UK IPO has accepted Cadbury’s application only for some of the goods for which Cadbury had applied and rejected it for others, in line with Nestlé’s request. We will assess the final decisions once it has been issued.”

If you require legal advice or assistance from our trademark law solicitors please contact our Commercial Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

According to recent figures released by the Office for National Statistics, Britain is experiencing a steady rise in the number of “silver separations”. Experts claim that many older couples are drifting apart once their children have flown the nest and are calling on the services of a divorce laywer.

Ros Altmann, director general of the over-50s group Saga believes that it is real proof that life is changing for the over-60s.

Statistics have highlighted that there is a higher proportion of men getting divorced in the 60 plus age group, this reflects the fact that husbands are generally older than their wives. Divorce is a difficult time. Older couples who have been together for many years, are more likely to have more complex financial matters to deal with, a divorce lawyer will help assess pensions, finance and property.

The television presenter, Esther Rantzen said: “In some cases, divorce over 60 is by people who have stayed together for the sake for their children and when they leave and realise they are not happy and decide to split and get on with independent living. In these cases it’s generally OK. But there are also cases when one partner desperately wanted to stay married end up unexpectedly on their own at a very vulnerable time in their lives. I’ve had letters from older divorcees who were bewildered by what had suddenly happened and had experienced terrible loneliness.”

For many it’s the start of the next phase of their lives. People are living longer and are in general much fitter and more active than previous generations. Couples are re-evaluating their relationships as they realise there is still time to start again, which can be distressing for their children to witness. Adults are often shocked to find their parents have been in consultation with a divorce lawyer and cannot believe their parents are chosing to separate in their later years.

If you require legal advice or assistance regarding divorce please contact our divorce lawyers, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Work and Pensions Minister, Maria Miller has said that “The current system is failing too many children, so I am pleased that we are taking one step further today towards the introduction of a new scheme next year. I am also announcing measures to help hard-pressed single parents, too few of whom currently seek child maintenance. By increasing the payments of non-resident parents on benefits and those on lower incomes we will encourage more separated families to share financial responsibility for their children.” She added that “The Government wants to encourage and support parents to make their own family-based arrangements, but are committed to providing a statutory service for those separated parents who are unable to co-operate”.

Absent parents who lie about their incomes to avoid paying child maintenance will be targeted through their tax records and forced to pay more. Thousands of separated parents who fail to contribute towards raising their children will face having their benefits cut, with the deducted money taken for child maintenance

The Government claims that the new statutory child maintenance scheme will be fairer, faster and less costly to the taxpayer. Included in the proposal are ‘Flat rate’ child maintenance deductions from state benefits which are to be increased above the £7 rate previously announced. Payments will be based on the non-resident parent’s latest tax-year gross income which will sourced directly from HM Revenue & Customs. Maintenance assessments will be reviewed annually to ensure that payments are keeping pace with absent parents’ earnings. Parents who equally share the care of their children will no longer be required to pay maintenance through the statutory scheme. Tax data will be used to reduce application times.

If you require advice or assistance regarding legal issues surrounding child maintenance please contact our family law solicitors at, Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Since last Christmas the UK has seen a new anti corruption law come into force, namely the Bribery Act (“the Act”). The Act makes it illegal to offer or receive bribes and to fail to prevent bribery.

What do we mean by Bribery?

The Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said earlier in the year, “Very generally, [bribery] is defined as giving someone a financial or other advantage to encourage that person to perform their functions or activities improperly or to reward that person for having already done so.”

What is the penalty?

While this covers the obvious elements of bribery, such as corruption, the Act also covers disproportionate hospitality and corporate gifts which will now be illegal. Individuals can face up to 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine.

What is our advice?

While some organisations have taken a very strict approach to this (most notably the Royal Mail who have told their staff not to accept Christmas tips over £30), the Act does not provide specific limits or examples. Strictly speaking, a gift of any value could be considered as a bribe if the motive behind it was to encourage someone to act improperly. Our advice would therefore simply be to follow the words of the Justice Secretary and use your “common sense”.

Myers Lister Price solicitors are happy to talk to you about any concerns you may have in respect of corporate hospitality or your anti-corruption policy. Please feel free to contact our Corporate and Commercial solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk and one of our legal team will contact you.

The proposals include:

• Making it legal to copy CDs to an MP3 player (which in theory is currently breach of copyright);
• Establishing licensing for material with unknown copyright owners (see blog on the Digital Copyright Exchange);
• Extended collective licensing that would allow “collecting societies” to licence on behalf of all rights holders;
• Copyright exceptions such as: private copying; research and private study; copyright works to be copied for the purpose of text and data mining for non-commercial research.

Without adversely affecting the creative industry, these proposed developments should provide new business opportunities for both companies that create intellectual property that they are do not use themselves and companies that do not have the research and development resources to create their own intellectual property.

The consultation will close on 21 March 2012. Please look out for our summary and advice in the days to following so that you and your business can be one of the first to take advantage of the new rules and regulations. For more information on copyright and intellectual property issues please contact our Corporate and Commercial Department who will be happy to help on 0161 926 9969 or at info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

This means that your loved one or close friend has the power to speak on your behalf and the authorities must consult with your attorneys in all instances.  In light of the bad press the authorities have had this week for failing people with dementia, this is a document we would recommend you consider implementing whilst you are fit and well and able to create one.

If you would like to discuss Lasting Powers of Attorney then please contact a member of the Wills, Trusts and Probate team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk for more information.

Thomas Cook is heading for a restructure of this nature and whilst it sorts out the financial and legal issues of the restructure they have delayed publication of full-year results until all restructure talks are concluded.

One of the banks which was engaged in talks with the cash-strapped tour operator, has indicated it is keen for a swift resolution of the company’s debt crisis.

It appears likely that company restructuring plans will involve shop closures. Thomas Cook merged its retail division with The Co-operative Travel and Midlands Co-operative in October. Media reports now suggest that the company could now close around 200 outlets in the UK.

Thomas Cook UK and Ireland mainstream chief executive Ian Ailles said the company will “focus on what we are good at. The name Thomas Cook is synonymous with being a leisure retailer. We know we are a great retailer.” He said “It’s normal for high street retailers to move or shut shops every year. We are pragmatic about it. Some shops will come up for a break in the lease and that will create a decision point. He added “We are looking at it and we’ll take a decision. Two hundred is not the number in my head, but it might be a number we reach over a couple of years. We will talk about shop plans in the announcement to the City.”

Myers Lister Price company restructuring solicitors will steer you through all areas of the restructure. For example it may be necessary to reduce the number of management positions to increase the number of staff on the front line, or reduce headcount to enable the business to get through tough economic times. Our specialist team will guide you through the challenges you will face and will ensure that your legal obligations are met at every stage of the process.

If you require legal advice or assistance from our company restructure solicitors please contact our Commercial team, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Bernie Ecclestone has given United States Grand Prix organisers a final deadline to prove they have the finances in place to stage next year’s scheduled race.

Owing to a commercial contract law dispute over the race-hosting, construction work on Austin’s new Formula 1 circuit had been suspended. Site workers were told to down tools “until a contract assuring the Formula 1 United States Grand Prix will be held at Circuit of The Americas in 2012 is complete”.

CoTA officials have announced that they are now in a position to pay the sanctioning fee required by Formula One Management. In a new twist to the ongoing saga, CoTA officials have said that if Ecclestone wanted to confirm the 2012 event he must countersign their modified contact. Ecclestone has been accused of demanding “unrealistic and unfeasible” terms.

CoTA has signed and returned its own version of the contract issued by Ecclestone, his thoughts on this unusual counter offer are not known. COTA’s Bobby Epstein has said that “We have been ready to send Mr. Ecclestone a sanctioning fee cheque for some time now,” he added. “He hasn’t received it yet because the new contract presented to us two weeks ago contained unrealistic and unfeasible demands. We have signed and returned a contract similar to what we anticipated receiving”.

Race promoters Full Throttle Productions have made it clear that the onus is on the circuit organisers to settle the commercial contract law dispute with F1. “After years of effort in getting F1 to Austin, Full Throttle Productions and city, county and state officials have done all we could,” the firm said in a statement. “It is the responsibility of Circuit of the Americas to bring it across the finish line. For the sake of everyone, we are hopeful that they can reach an agreement with Formula 1.”

If you require legal advice or assistance related to Commercial Contract Law please contact our Commercial Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Sir Nicholas Wall who is the President of the Family Division, has said that judges need to “take the initiative” in family cases and not just be the “decider”. He said that he was concerned that children are “often very damaged” by the way family disputes are settled in “adversarial” court cases.

Leading lawyers have warned that the problem will worsen under planned legal aid cuts which will result in more parents representing themselves in court. Sir Nicholas has expressed “considerable anxiety” over the effect the cuts will have on family cases and the protection of children.

Clients who have never had involvement with social services, are often mystified by what is expected of them in proceedings, and rely heavily on a childrens solicitor for guidance.

Speaking to the Bar Council’s Law Reform Committee, he said: “It has long been my view that adversarial proceedings are often not the best way to resolve family disputes. He added that although judges are partially “inquisitorial” they remain the “judge, not the investigator”. He went on to say that his European colleagues are “astonished” that judges in the UK do not talk to the children in case and that cases are often led by advocates as overloaded judges often do not have time to go through all the papers.

Sir Nicholas expressed concern over Government plans to cut legal aid for family cases as “the supply of properly qualified family lawyers is vital to the protection of children” adding that a good childrens solicitor will give “sensible realistic advice”.

If you require advice or assistance regarding family legal matters please contact our Family / Children’s solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Sacked staff will be unable to claim unfair dismissal until they have been in a job for two years. He is proposing that businesses planning collective redundancies need only give staff 45 or 30 days notice, rather than the current 90 days. He claims that the reforms will make the British labour market “fit for the 21st century”.

Unions have accused the Government of an assault on workers’ rights. The new business law proposed will force individuals seeking unfair dismissal to go to conciliation service Acas before taking the case to an employment tribunal. Cable is also considering a ban on workers using private conversations with bosses about their performance in tribunal cases.

A Department for Business spokesman said: “This is the most radical shake-up of the employment law system in decades. This package will make it easier for businesses when taking on, managing and letting go of staff, while also being fair to workers.”

GMB general secretary Paul Kenny said “These changes will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of workers to bring cases of victimisation, unfairness and bullying at work. This will just sweep abuse under the carpet”.

Cable’s announcement of changes in business law has come as David Cameron boasted he was leading a “Dyno-Rod” government, which unblocked obstacles to growth. In a private meeting with ministers, the Prime Minister said the economy was in a “very difficult situation” and hinted that growth and jobless figures are likely to make grim reading for the Government.

For more information on how we can help you with all aspects of business law please contact our Commercial Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

It’s not a merry topic but if this is true it is more important than ever for people to consider the implications of losing their mental capacity. In the line of work I’m in I find myself asking people more and more if they have even thought about what happens when they get old and maybe not as mentally astute as before.

A will is often last on people’s to-do lists and when they finally get around to meeting with a solicitor to think about the future and what should happen with their assets, it’s often the first time they will even consider provision for their life in mental ill health.

All too often I hear clients say: “I will never go into a care home” and I am left with the task of informing them that if they lose their mental capacity it will not be up to them if they are to go into a care home or if they are to be looked after at home – someone else will decide. The only decision they can make now, is who will be allowed to make that decision.

Start thinking now

It is just over four years now since we saw the change from Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) to Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and my worry is, due to the change, fewer people than before are making powers of attorney.

The initial change saw awkward forms which created confusion and resulted in plain language experts being employed to re-design the then 26 page for and reduce them to a less daunting 11 pages.

The problem with the new regime is not just the increased paperwork but the extra time spent in preparing the documents and advising the client.  This obviously equates to extra cost to the client and this can be the reason why LPAs are not created especially in these uncertain economic times. The concern is that by avoiding the cost now is potentially creating a real problem for clients in the future should they lose their mental capacity.

But where does this leave us looking forward?

People losing mental capacity without an EPA or LPA will have to rely on a deputyship order in which an appropriate person is appointed to look after their financial affairs or health and welfare decisions (there are two types).

I believe there are four major problems which arise from this:

• It is lengthy, in my experience on average an application takes between 6 -12 months.  This is time when the patient (the person who has lost capacity) has no one looking after their financial affairs. Whilst this may not be too much concern for the patient it is often the cause of great stress to the patient’s family.
• The cost of obtaining a deputyship order can often be four to five times that of an LPA.
• The patient does not get to choose who is going to be their deputy, it may end up being someone they didn’t want making decisions for them.
• A deputyship application is less flexible than an LPA, the Court of Protection (COP) does not like awarding health and welfare deputies which can be appointed under the LPA.  The COP have made it clear, and the statistics show, that the COP wish to deal with health and welfare decisions on a decision by decision basis and therefore a fresh application for each decision. This is not practical for the patient’s family and is likely to cost a lot of money.

My worry is that if clients are putting off creating LPAs there is going to be a generation which is fast approaching which will not have provision for their life ahead in which they are not able to make decisions.

This problem isn’t going to just affect them directly, but also the people around them. Such provision surely must be more important to them than making a will which will only come into effect after they have died.

It’s time to stop the mental health ticking time bomb.

Paul Coombs one of the Wills, Trust & Probate team at Myers Lister Price wrote this blog inititally for the Private Client Adviser and he is a regular blogger the Private Client Adviser website.

If you would like more information on the above please contact us on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The test now adopted is as follows:

• The starting point is the legal ownership of the property – for joint owners this will be that the property is held in equal shares, for sole owners that it is their sole property
• However, this can be overridden if there is evidence of a common intention of the parties either at the time of purchase or subsequently to change this
• That “common intention” will be inferred from the parties’ conduct and dealings
• Where it is found that there is clear evidence that there was a different intention as to ownership but no clear evidence as to what the shares of ownership should be, the court will decide what is fair given the whole course of dealing between the parties in relation to the property

Quite what the outcome will be in any case is therefore extremely difficult to predict. Cohabiting couples should consider entering into a cohabitation agreement to properly define the shares of ownership.  Such agreements can deal with:

• Existing and future property
• Inheritance
• Gifts
• Business interests
• Debts
• Bank accounts
• And much more

For more information on the above contact our Family Law Solicitors Altrincham on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

“What really matters is what the court can see with its own eyes”

- Sir Robin Jacob , Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1206, 27 October 2011

The Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier High Court decision in Dyson v Vax. It agreed that Vax had not infringed Dyson’s intellectual property by designing and producing the Mach Zen vacuum cleaner. Although it looked quite similar the court concluded that it “produced a different overall impression on the informed user” (this being the test for infringement) and was therefore not in breach.

Why is this decision important? Like all registered design owners Dyson has the exclusive right to use its registered design for a maximum of 25 years following registration. Dyson registered the design in 1994 so had thought that no competitors would be able to make a similar looking and functioning vacuum cleaner until at least 2019. What this decision has shown, however, is that simply registering the overall design of a product is no longer enough. Such a broad registration will not give sufficient protection to those aspects of a product that really do require safeguarding.   Although the products were clearly similar in function and design the court concluded that “what really matters is what the court can see with its own eyes”, and in this instance it saw too many differences.  Overall, the appeal judges characterized the registered design as producing a visual impression that is “smooth, curving and elegant” whilst that of the Mach Zen is “rugged, angular and industrial”. This, it concluded, gave a “different overall impression on the informed user”.

Myers Lister Price Corporate and Commercial Department: Intellectual Property, offer a full registered design service, from advising on the strengths of a registered design application, through the registration itself and onto protection of the design and enforcement of the intellectual property rights. As we have learnt from the Dyson case, simply registering an overall design of a product may no longer be enough to protect the product from being copied. We would advise our clients (as the UK and EU laws allow) to not only protect the design of a whole product but to also consider protecting specific parts of a product. Our experienced intellectual property team are on hand to advise what aspects of a design may be worth protecting and how this can best be done for you.

If you have any intellectual property enquiries please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our Intellectual Property Solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Our Tip is:- If during the course of defending civil proceedings, you consider that the Claimant will not be able to pay your legal costs if later ordered to do so, you should seriously consider an application for security for costs.

An order for security for costs requires a Claimant to pay money into court as security for the Defendant’s costs, to ensure that the Defendant has their costs paid should the claim be unsuccessful. If the court imposes a payment but the Claimant cannot afford to pay it, it will be prevented from pursuing the case any further.

If you would like more information on security for costs please contact our litigation team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Vince Cable said:  “A digital copyright exchange would be a global first and could unlock significant growth potential in the creative sector, benefitting consumers and businesses alike.”

As Professor Hargreaves report concluded, such an exchange would “make it easier for rights owners, small and large, to sell licenses in their work and for others to buy them”.

A digital copyright exchange would give businesses and consumers easy access to copyright materials.  Myers Lister Price advises many potential licensors and licensees on the commercial benefits of licensing intellectual property.

There are many advantages to licensing your IP or taking a license of IP. These include:

• Sharing risk – Licensor: receives revenues for no risk   Licensee: has the right to use the IP without the R&D costs

• Market Penetration – Licensor: receives revenues from territories it cannot reach itself

• Reduced Cost – Licensee: has the right to use the IP without the R&D costs

• Time – Licensee: saves time by not having to create its own design

• Collaboration – Licensor & Licensee: parties may work together to increase revenue

For more information on how the digital copyright exchange may benefit your business, or for information on licensing intellectual property, please contact our Copyright Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Between July and September 2011, 9,567 individuals entered bankruptcy. This is a significant drop of 31.2% from the same period last year. The number of people entering individual voluntary arrangements remained steady with there being 13,048 during July to September 2011.
Paul Hatton, comments “A positive to take from the latest figures is that the number of personal insolvencies has dropped. The number of company insolvencies remains high but steady. The total number of insolvencies shows that businesses need to remain careful and vigilant when providing credit. A business takes a significant risk if it extends too much credit to customers or takes too long to pursue outstanding invoices. If a customer becomes insolvent, the business faces the prospect of receiving no payment at all. Businesses should consider taking other steps to help minimise the risk of extending credit to a customer who is unable to pay, such as credit checks in advance, clear terms and conditions and personal guarantees.”
“The economy continues to place companies and individuals under financial pressure. Businesses should keep on top of the amount of credit allowed to customers and act promptly if there are warning signs about the customer’s ability or willingness to pay.”

If you would like to know more about insovency contact our litigation team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Mr Kernott and Ms Jones bought a house in their join names in 1985. They separated in 1993 following which Ms Jones was solely responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments.  In 2006 Mr Kernott sought to realise his interest in the property which he claimed was 50%. Ms Jones argued she should be the sole beneficial owner of the property.

No declaration had been made as to who owned what at the time of the purchase. The question arose as to whether the conduct of the parties in the period following their separation was sufficient to change the shares of ownership in the property.

When the matter first came to court, the judge decided that it was and awarded Ms Jones a 90% share. Mr Kernott successfully appealed the decision in 2010 when the Court of Appeal indicated that ownership was equal.

Ms Jones then appealed to the Supreme Court which has now reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reverted to the decision of the original judge by awarded Ms Jones a 90% beneficial interest in the property, with Mr Jones having just 10%.

The Supreme Court decision has provided us with guidance on how the courts will approach a dispute of this nature. The starting point is still to consider what the legal ownership of the is (whether in joint names or one party’s sole name). However, whilst there is a presumption that the beneficial shares of ownership should follow the legal documentation, that presumption can be rebutted by evidence that it was not, or ceased to be, the common intention of the parties to hold the property in that way.

Where there is no clear evidence of the parties’ intentions with regard to ownership, the court will seek to infer a common intention by looking at the parties’ conduct and dealings with each other. However, the court will now go even further. In cases where the court is satisfied that the parties had a different intention as to ownership than the legal documentation suggests (either at the outset or subsequently) but there is no evidence to clarify what the shares of ownership should be, the court will determine what those shares are on the basis of what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealings between the parties so far as the property is concerned.

The decision has been hailed as a return to common sense and certainly provides more flexibility when there is a disagreement between couples as to who owns what.  However, given that the court will now effectively impose intentions on parties who may well not have had them, does this go too far? Certainly, whilst there is now more flexibility there is certainly increased uncertainty in such cases and it is worth bearing in mind that Ms Jones and Mr Kernott have spent 6 years fighting this case through the court. They are not wealthy individuals and the property itself was of modest value.

The case certainly highlights the need for reform of the legislation to provide us with a clear framework in which to work. Couples should also think very carefully when they purchase a property how they wish to own it and ensure that they are given appropriate advice at the time of purchase. I would also strongly recommend entering into a cohabitation agreement to define the parties’ intentions clearly and concisely. The cost of doing so is a fraction of the costs of bringing court proceedings and will also provide peace of mind.

If you would like more legal advice on cohabitation agreements contact our family law solicitor Altrincham on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The overall divorce rate may have decreased but for the fifth year running couples in their 20’s have the highest divorce rate. This has highlighted a link between marrying young and divorce. Up to 70 percent of divorces were to couples whose grounds for ending the marriage was ‘unreasonable behaviour.’

Divorce due to unreasonable behaviour generally means that your spouse has behaved in such a way that you cannot reasonably be expected to live with him/her. Generally referred to as an unreasonable behaviour petition. Any petition must contain sufficient allegations of unreasonable behaviour by your spouse to persuade a court that you are entitled to a divorce on that basis.

For more information on divorce, separation or dissolution please contact our Family Solicitors, who will be happy to help you, on 0161 926 9969.

Mr Nixson was fired in July this year (2011) when News Corp’s management and standards committee said it uncovered evidence of wrongdoing during his time at the News of the World. He is suing his former employer’s executives Will Lewis and Simon Greenberg, the media group’s chief lawyer Jeffrey Palker, and Lord Grabiner QC, the chairman of its management and standards committee, for more than £100,000 in damages.

Mr Nixson denies any involvement in unlawful activity and claims News Corp’s committee does not have the power to sack News Group employees. News Group is a subsidiary of News International, which is owned by News Corp.

Nixson filed a separate employment tribunal complaint against News Group for unfair dismissal in September. That tribunal is thought to be on hold while the high court legal action proceeds.
The damages of more than £100,000, incorporates 12 months’ salary plus additional benefits. Mr Nixson believes that due to News Corp’s actions he will face difficulty in finding alternative employment. “given the implication that he was involved in the phone-hacking activities of the News of the World”.

Mr Nixson was not provided with any reason for his dismissal at the meeting where he was dismissed, but he was told that his dismissal related to the discovery of emails from the journalist’s time at the News of the World which were “of interest to the police in their investigations”. However, Mr Nixson was never told what was in those emails. Mr Nixson also said that a full disciplinary hearing would have exonerated him of any allegations of wrongdoing. However no disciplinary hearing ever took place.

News Group confirmed in writing that Mr Nixson had been dismissed for gross misconduct over the discovery of “evidence of criminal conduct”.

If you have a legal issue that is related to a breach of contract then please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our Commercial Law Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Paul Hatton Litigation Solicitor at Myers Lister Price Solicitors comments “Breach of intellectual property rights can be extremely damaging to a business. It can take years to develop a brand, product or design and a small business should have the opportunity to protect itself in a proportionate way, should its rights be infringed. Many small businesses cannot afford to pursue a court claim or are put off by the extent of the legal costs involved. The proposed small claims service will provide access to justice for businesses who would otherwise be priced out of pursuing such claims.”

The service is to be able to grant compensation of up to £5,000 per case and impose a fixed costs regime. The intention is that it will be a quicker and cheaper alternative to the existing processes. The service is due to be introduced before the end of 2012.

For more information contact our litigation team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

(With thanks to Hogarth Chambers who’s Tom St Quintin was junior counsel for TvCatchup Limited and who have provided a copy of this Judgment on their website)

Royal Courts of Justice, High Court:

Last Monday saw Mr Justice Floyd hand down a further Judgment in ITV Broadcasting and Others v TvCatchup Limited.  The Judgments asks the European Court to determine whether live internet streaming of free-to-air TV channels is lawful.

Background

The website of TvCatchup Limited allows viewers to watch live streams of free-to-air television channels.  ITV and others have claimed that TvCatchup had infringed their copyright by broadcasting their programs to the public.

Initially TvCatchup attempted to have the ITV’s claim struck out by submitting an application under CPR 24 that ITV had no real prospect of succeeding at Trial.  TvCatchup argued that its transmission was not a “broadcast” because of the “mode of delivery” and because the transmission was “one to one” not “one to many”.  The Judge disagreed with this.  The application was dismissed.

At the hearing TvCatchup denied infringement and relied on a defence relating to transient copies (under Section 28A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) (i.e. that the copies did not last and a defence that permits the re-transmission of some broadcasts within their intended reception areas (under Section 73).  The Judge referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the European Court”).

The European Court decided that this was a matter for the national court.

ITV submitted that the decisions in Football Association Premier League Limited and Others v QC Leisure and Others and Airfield NC and Canaal Digital NV Sabam and Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA about what constituted “communication to the public” was.  Floyd J disagreed with this and referred a question back to the European Court.

Question to the European Court

The question essentially amounted to whether there was a right to authorise or prohibit a “communication to the public” of a party’s works where the author has already authorised the inclusion of the works in a terrestrial free-to-air television broadcast and where the third party provides a service whereby the individual subscribers within the intended area of reception of the broadcast already lawfully receive a broadcast on their television receivers.  Then, would the answer be any different where a third party’s server only allowed “one to one” connection; if a third party service was funded by advertising; and if the third party was providing an alternate service to the original broadcaster by acting in competition.

We now await the decision from the European Court.

If you would like to know more about copyright and other intellectual property rights then please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our Corporate and Commercial Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Mr Roots, who’s “Reggae Reggae Sauce” first became famous after he won backing on the Dragon’s Den television programme, is being sued by former business partner Tony Bailey and financial advisor Sylvester Williams for more than £600,000.

The claimants Mr Bailey and Mr Williams insist that that Roots cut them out of an agreement to launch the sauce together. In reply Mr Roots said his business agreement with Bailey had terminated before he went on the show and insisted that Bailey and Williams have no rights to the business.
On top of this accusation Mr Bailey also claims it was his recipe that Mr Roots used when they ran a jerk chicken stall at the Notting Hill Carnival, and that it was this recipe that was being used for the famous Reggae Reggae Sauce.
Mr Roots admitted when questioned in court that his “claim” that the sauce had been the taste of the Notting Hill carnival for 15 years was “a marketing ploy”. He also confessed that the recipe had not been handed down to him by his grandmother but that he had created it by adapting a basic recipe.

It appears there are no written documents begin presented in the case, so it would appear to be a contract dispute without the evidence of a written contract and so it will be very interesting to see the results of this legal case.

If you have a legal issue that is related to a breach of contract then please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our Commercial Law Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Whitehall have long considered the joint registration of a child by an unmarried mother and father an indicator a couple are equally committed to their child. Fathers who sign and register the baby’s birth jointly with the mother will now have an automatic right to an equal say in their children’s upbringing. Unmarried fathers will now have a legal right to see their children on a regular basis if they separate from the mother. Up until now these rights have been available only to married fathers or fathers who have made a special application for a ‘parental responsibility agreement’ which is shared with the mothers.

This change in law removes the importance of marriage and satisfies the call from men’s pressure groups who insist that absent fathers are too often excluded from the children’s lives by mothers.

For more advice regarding parental rights please contact our family law solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Norgrove Report rejected the call to give the principal, that children should have a ‘meaningful relationship’ with both parents, a legal basis. It plans only to say that when making decisions about a child’s future, courts should keep the ‘idea’ of a meaningful relationship with an absentee father in mind. It is understood, through a senior government official that the panel felt the courts could end up spending length periods to decide the definition of a meaningful relationship and that equal shared custody led to court delays which are not in the interests of the child.

Mr Norgrove concluded in his Interim Report that the state of the family courts is ‘shocking’ and that disputes are taking ‘far too long’ to resolve. Plans for parents to equally share custody of their children have been rejected by Mr Norgrove on the basis that evidence from countries such as Australia, where such a system has been implemented, have shown this system to not work effectively.

The report was rejected by campaigners for father rights as a ‘slap in the face for fathers’.  Campaigners believe that it undermines government claims that they would speak up for a strong family life. Fathers 4 Justice coordinator Nadine O’Connor was quoted as saying that ‘This whole exercise has been designed to appease women’s groups, not fathers’.

For more advice regarding child custody and divorce please contact our divorce lawyers on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

1. Employees can continue to accrue annual leave entitlement during sickness absence.
2. Employees can choose to take annual leave at the same time as being absent due to sickness.

But, can employees on sickness absence claim holiday pay where no notice to take the leave has been given pursuant to Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations?

The answer is NO, from a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

MLP Solicitors Employment Top Tip is: Know your legal rights as an Employer so that your employees don’t claim for holiday pay when they are not entitled to do so!

For more information on sick leave, holiday pay or any employment related issues, contact our employment solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

In England and Wales it is not possible to apply for a divorce until you have been married for at least 12 months. This is an absolute rule; there is no discretion for the courts to accept a shorter period. Whilst it is possible to apply for a judicial separation (a procedure which is similar to a divorce and which enables the courts to get involved in making some, but not all, of the financial orders available on divorce) this is often of limited use as the parties remain married at the end of the process and it is then necessary to apply for a divorce to finalise matters.

It is also possible to apply for an annulment of the marriage in limited circumstances, but this is, again, often of limited value and not available in the majority of cases.

Another common misconception is the ability to apply for a divorce on the basis of irreconcilable differences. I have lost count of the number of times a client has asked me to use this as the ground for a divorce. In England and Wales, there is only one ground for a divorce – the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Unless you are prepared to wait a minimum of 2 years from the date of separation, the breakdown of the marriage must be proved by basing the divorce on the other party’s adultery or unreasonable behaviour. There is no equivalent of irreconcilable differences.

Kim Kardashian reportedly insisted that she and Kris Humphries enter a pre-nuptial agreement prior to the marriage. Whilst such agreements still may not have formal legal status in England and Wales, the courts will now look to hold parties to such an agreement, freely entered into with a full appreciation of its implications unless it would not be fair to do so.  Pre-nuptial agreements have therefore become a very useful way of potentially avoiding the expense of lengthy litigation about financial settlement on divorce. It is even possible to enter into an agreement after the marriage has taken place.

If you would like more information on divorce and pre-nuptials speak to one of our family law solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

In a bid to protect their intellectual property rights, both brewers sought to register their interest in the name “Budweiser”. In February 2000 the Court of Appeal held that both companies were allowed to register “Budweiser” as a trade mark and the applications to do so proceeded to registration on the same day.

Five years later, AB ImBev made an application for a declaration that Budvar’s trade mark was invalid, on the basis that it was a later trade mark.

The initial decision made by the UK Intellectual Property Office was that Budvar’s trade mark was invalid on the grounds that it was identical to an earlier trade mark owned by AB ImBev.  The High Court upheld this decision.  The Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the ECJ.

This month the ECJ has finally ruled that Budvar’s trade mark is valid because, both companies have been marketing their beers under the name “Budweiser” since the 1970’s and, although the trade marks were identical, the beers themselves were clearly identifiable as being produced by different companies.  There was therefore no adverse effect on the essential function of AB ImBev’s trade mark.

The deciding factor in this case was consumer confusion.  As Budvar was able to prove that the UK consumers were well aware of the difference between the two beers, the ECJ was happy to allow both companies to use the trade mark concurrently.

If you would like to find out more about concurrent use of a trade mark, or intellectual property rights in general, then please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our Corporate and Commercial Law Solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or by e-mail info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Owners of both commercial and residential properties need to take steps to prevent trespassers entering and remaining on land and property. This is especially the case where land or premises lay vacant.

Paul Hatton comments: “Once trespassers are in place, it can be a tricky and expensive process to remove them. Trespassers cannot be stereotyped into opportunistic groups or individuals looking for a place to sleep. More commonly, the trespassers have an excellent understanding of their legal rights and know the steps a land owner must take to obtain possession. These sophisticated trespassers can attempt to draw out the legal proceedings to enable them to stay longer. It is not by accident that the attempts to remove the occupiers of Dale Farm have been ongoing for years.”

Owners are very unlikely to be able to recover the legal costs of the court proceedings from the trespassers. Once trespassers are removed from site, the clean up or repair costs can also be significant.

Paul Hatton adds: “Prevention is better than the cure. Owners of vacant premises or land should ensure that security of the site is maintained.”

Should you discover trespassers, please contact our litigation team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

When people purchase a property together there are two types of ownership.

Joint Tenants – In this case the parties own the whole of the property jointly and when one party dies the property automatically passes to the survivor (a process called “survivorship”) and the deceased’s share of the property does not form part of their estate.

Tenants in Common – In this case each party owns their separate shares and on death the deceased’s share passes into their estate. The shares can be equal or unequal e.g. 60:40, 70:30. This form of ownership is often used where the parties are making unequal contributions to the purchase of a property.

A joint tenancy can be severed by service of a Notice of Severance in which the parties will in future own the property as tenants in common with the consequences outlined above and it is important to note that the other party cannot prevent the severance.

When purchasing a property together, whether the parties are married or not, it is important to obtain legal advice on the appropriate method of ownership. This is particularly important for cohabitants since the courts do not have the same powers to adjust the parties’ shares in the event of separation as they do in the case of dissolution of marriage/ civil partnership. In the event of separation the type of ownership should be ascertained at an early stage and the parties should individually be advised on and consider whether severance of any joint tenancy is appropriate in their case. They should also be advised that if they do not themselves wish to sever the joint tenancy their partner may do so.

For advice on joint tenancy / tenants in common or any other family law issues contact our family law solicitors at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or e mail info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

• Day 1 rights: All agency workers are now entitled to the following from day 1 of their assignment:

o  access to “collective facilities and amenities” of the hirer;

o   and access to information about the employment vacancies of the hirer.

• 12 weeks rights: Following completion of a 12 week qualifying period, agency workers will become entitled to the same or no less favourable “basic working conditions” as comparable permanent staff.

New powers have been given to Employment Tribunals including the option of imposing a fine of up to £5,000 per agency worker if the employer is deliberately avoiding the new regulations. This includes re-hiring workers before the expiry of 12 weeks.

Companies that hire or supply agency workers should now be working within the new regulations and should contact MLP’s employment team if they have any queries on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”) has been granting exclusive satellite broadcasting licenses to individual member states which prohibit the licensees from supplying decoder cards that would enable others to view their football matches outside of the licensed territory.

Karen Murphy, the landlady of the Red, White and Blue pub in Portsmouth, was not prepared to pay the huge subscription fee to Sky to show the matches and, instead, opted to buy the games through a Greek satellite broadcaster for a much cheaper price.

The FAPL took legal action against Ms Murphy, claiming that she was in breach of copyright, and consequently she was fined £8,000 by a British Court.

Mrs Murphy appealed to the ECJ and this month it has overturned the decision of the British Court and ruled that the FAPL’s licenses restrict competition, which is contrary to EU law.

The ECJ’s decision, however, had two parts. The second half of the judgment ‘evened the score’ as the court ruled that transmitting Premier League games to the customers in a public house could constitute communication to the public of various copyright works and this could infringe the FAPL’s copyright.  The ECJ noted that, although there was no copyright in the live footage of the matches themselves, there is copyright in elements of the broadcast such as the opening video sequence, the theme tune and graphics.

If you would like to know more about copyright and other intellectual property rights then please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry, our Commercial Law Solicitors, at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

In the context of Information Technology, Escrow is the independent storage of source code by an escrow agent, on terms that permit the release of such a code on the occurrence of specified events.

What is an Escrow Agreement?

An Escrow Agreement consists of a three-party contract between a software house, the licensee of the software, and a third party escrow agent. The escrow agreement is also commonly referred to as a “source code deposit agreement”.

Source Code and Object Code

Source code is a version of a computer program written in alpha numeric symbols, which cannot be processed directly by a computer without first being translated (or compiled) into a machine-readable form. Object Code is the machine-readable form of that program.

Software houses consider source code to be their crown jewels as software cannot be maintained or updated without it. A software licensee will want access to the source code of the software for that very reason, but the software house will normally only be willing to provide licensees with the object code.

Purpose of Escrow Agreement

The escrow agreement is intended to address the tension between the legitimate wish of the software house to keep its source code confidential, and the legitimate requirement of the licensee to ensure that it is able to get the software package updated and to have problems dealt with.

Under an escrow agreement the software house agrees to deposit a copy of the source code with an escrow agent, and then the licensee and the escrow agent all enter into a tripartite agreement to govern its release which is normally based on conditions – e.g. software house going bust or breaching a material term of the software licence.

To be effective, an escrow agreement needs to address 3 key questions:-

• What material is to be placed on deposit with the escrow agent?

• In what circumstances the material may be released?

• What the licensee is entitled to do with that material once it has been released?

If you would like more information on software licences and/or Escrow Agreements, please contact our intellectual property solicitors Stephen Attree or Awena Parry from our Commercial team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

In a recent family departmental meeting we felt we wanted to get involved with more local charities and The Birdhouse Fund is a great choice! In conjunction with the Manchester Food and Drink festival The Bird House Fund ran a cake sale in Albert Square in Manchester on Sunday 16 October 2011 and raised nearly £900. The family department took inspiration from this event and decided to hold our own mini cake sale in Altrincham. We are pleased to announce that Myers Lister Price Solicitors has raised £83.93!!

Businesses can help protect themselves against claims with up to date and tailored Contracts of Employment, Handbooks and Policies. Businesses should consider including intellectual property, restrictive covenant and confidentialitty clauses in their Contracts.

Latest developments in employment law include the abolishment of the default retirement age, the introduction of compulsory pension schemes for all employers, the introduction of the Agency Worker Regulations and the implementation of the The Bribery Act.

Employers can stay up to date with employment law and ensure protection from Employment Tribunal claims with MLP EmployNet. MLP EmployNet offers all of the documents and advice that businesses need in respect of HR issues together with an insurance package to pay legal fees to defend an Employment Tribunal claim, all for a fixed fee (starting at £599 p.a. plus VAT and insurance). This provides piece of mind and cost certainty with excellent service.

Contact Tom Saville in our employment solicitor team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk for further information

Facebook’s terms and conditions clearly state that “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, pornographic or incites violence…”

There are however an increasing number of pages on Facebook set up by users which promote rape, and include comments such “You know she’s playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway”. Despite 176,000 signing a Facebook petition requesting for the pro-rape sites to be taken down, the pages still remain online.

Facebook are playing a dangerous game in allowing criminals to have a forum to promote crime on-line, and are leaving themselves exposed to several claims, which is exactly what their terms and conditions are there to protect them from.
So why are they not enforcing their own terms?!

Several company websites now allow their users to upload their own comments/opinions on-line.  This is the world that we now live in, and we all need to move with the times but companies need to ensure that they are not responsible for their users’ on-line comments, and that they take them down as soon as possible.

If you would like to know more about user generated content on your website, and the risks associated to these, please get in touch with Stephen Attree or Awena Parry our commercial law solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

Cohabitation is most likely to be relevant when considering the issue of spousal maintenance. Spousal maintenance is different to child maintenance which will usually be paid in accordance with the Child Support Agency’s guidelines. Spousal maintenance may be necessary if one party’s reasonable outgoings cannot be satisfied by their income and the other spouse has capacity to assist them.

If it is established that a party may require spousal maintenance, the court will consider, amongst other things:

• Whether that party lives under the same roof as their partner and whether they share tasks and duties within that home?
• The financial arrangements and the degree of sharing of obligations will be scrutinised. Do the parties share the outgoings on the property and if not would it be reasonable to expect the co-habitee to do so?
• The duration of any cohabitation. The longer the period of cohabitation, the more likely the court is to find it to be a permanent and stable relationship.
• The more permanent the relationship, the more likely it will reduce the duration of spousal maintenance or remove the obligation to pay it altogether.

If, after a spousal maintenance order is made the party receiving the maintenance or the paying party starts cohabitating with a new partner, the change in circumstances will have an impact on their financial circumstances. Cohabiting is usually cheaper than running two separate households.
The outcome may be that:

• Maintenance payable is reduced/ increased.
• The length of time maintenance must be paid for is shortened.
• The obligation to pay maintenance is terminated altogether.

Outcomes are dependent on the individual facts of each case. If you would like any advice regarding divorce, separation, cohabitation or maintenance please do not hesitate to contact a member of our family law solicitors Altrincham on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk for more information.

The risk of deadlock at shareholder level arises within a company when the company is owned in equal shares and managed by the equal shareholders.  An example of deadlock would be where one shareholder wants to drive the business in a new direction or looks for an investor whilst the other shareholder is happy to run the business as usual with as little change as possible. This is often the case when there are new shareholders looking to move the company forward and with the times, and more senior shareholders want to keep things as they are comfortably ticking along pending their retirement.

Deadlock can cause disruption and is bad for business. It is very risky for a new start up business as they work to tight time scales and budgets. If the deadlock is not resolved quickly the business could fail. The courts are unlikely to settle an internal shareholder dispute unless one shareholder has acted in breach of contract or duty. Litigation can also be expensive and time consuming and could further damage the reputation of your business. It is therefore very important that companies have an agreement in place to resolve deadlock within the business quickly and privately.

A Shareholders’ Agreement can include a deadlock clause where shareholders are asked to use commercially level-headed efforts to deal with deadlock disputes in a prescribed manned, and within given timescales. If the deadlock cannot be resolved then a deadlock clause can state that a compulsory purchase of one party’s shares by the other shareholder must be initiated to end the deadlock.

For more information on shareholders disputes and resolving deadlock, contact our shareholders agreements solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Please see the blog below for more information on whether you want to have an affair during your divorce…

For many married couples separating it can be difficult to reach the final decision that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Inevitably during this period of time, or indeed once the decision has been made many people move on and form new relationships. It is therefore natural to wonder whether any new relationships might have an impact upon divorce proceedings.

The first way in which an affair/ relationship with someone other than your spouse may be relevant is in relation to divorce proceedings. Whilst there is only one ground for divorce which is the irretrievable break down of the marriage this must be supported by one of five facts. The two most commonly used are adultery and unreasonable behaviour. Case law defines adultery as voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is married, but not to each other. It is therefore possible to commit adultery whilst you are married even though you are separated. This will however of itself have no impact upon how financial matters or issues to do with the children are treated.

If your new relationship has progressed to cohabitation this might have an impact upon how financial matters relating to the divorce are dealt with. It is important to note that unlike remarriage, cohabitation does not automatically bring spousal maintenance to an end.

Cohabitation is most likely to be relevant when considering the issue of spousal maintenance. Spousal maintenance is different to child maintenance which will usually be paid in accordance with the Child Support Agency’s guidelines. Spousal maintenance may be necessary if one party’s reasonable outgoings cannot be satisfied by their income and the other spouse has capacity to assist them.

If it is established that a party may require spousal maintenance, the court will consider, amongst other things:

• Whether that party lives under the same roof as their partner and whether they share tasks and duties within that home?
• The financial arrangements and the degree of sharing of obligations will be scrutinised. Do the parties share the outgoings on the property and if not would it be reasonable to expect the co-habitee to do so?
• The duration of any cohabitation. The longer the period of cohabitation, the more likely the court is to find it to be a permanent and stable relationship.
• The more permanent the relationship, the more likely it will reduce the duration of spousal maintenance or remove the obligation to pay it altogether.

The assets of the co-habitee may be relevant if the parties are living in a house belonging to one of the parties as it may be relevant to the issue of housing needs.

Outcomes are dependent on the individual facts of each case. If you would like any advice regarding divorce, separation, cohabitation or maintenance please do not hesitate to contact a member of our family department on 0161 926 9969. We are running a series of free 30 minute appointments throughout the autumn. For further information email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The Government has confirmed yesterday that this will be increased to 2 years with effect from 6 April 2012.

The news has been welcomed by some business groups but some spokespersons have said that the decision could lead to an increase in discrimination claims which do not have such a qualifying period. Unfair dismissal claims are expected to drop by 2,000 per year.  The announcement pre-empts the outcome of the Government’s “Resolving Workplace Disputes” consultation which also proposes a fee for lodging a claim in the Employment Tribunal.

If you would like more information on Employment law contact our Employment Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

What are the options?

On divorce, the court must consider the financial resources of the parties and this includes any benefits under a pension arrangement which any party has or is likely to have. The court also has to consider any loss of pension benefits that may result from divorce. Since December 2000 the court has had three alternatives available to it when dealing with pensions.

• Offsetting – Here the party without pension rights or with the lesser pension rights receives a greater share of the other assets. The pension itself is left untouched.
• Pension Attachment – An attachment order is an order whereby the party without pension rights or with the lesser pension rights receives sums that would have gone to the party with pension rights. Such sums could be sums that are due by way of lump sum or monthly payments. Such orders only take effect once the party with the pension rights takes his or her pension and there can therefore be a significant delay before the order produces any money. It can also be affected by the recipient’s remarriage,
• Pension Sharing – here the party without pension rights or with the lesser rights receives a percentage of the pension fund belonging to the other party and receives their own pension fund known as a pension credit. Sometimes the pension credit has to remain with the exiting pension provider (but as a separate fund). In other cases the pension credit has to be transferred to a different provider.

In many cases the choice of options may be hypothetical in that offsetting will only be available if there are other assets which can be used to offset against the pension. Where there is a choice the client may have a preference – either to retain/ receive pension provision or offer/ receive other assets e.g. property. However, it should be borne in mind that a court may be reluctant to approve a settlement which leaves one party with all the liquid assets e.g. property, savings etc and the other with the illiquid assets i.e. the pensions.

In some cases it may be necessary to obtain actuarial advice as to the different options in order that the client can consider which would be most appropriate. Any such advice will normally be obtained on the basis of a joint instruction on behalf of both parties as with the valuation as referred to in Part 1. Another question to consider is are the pensions to be split on the basis of their capital values or the income to be received on retirement? Women have a longer life expectancy than men and therefore the same fund will produce a lower income for a woman than a man. The older the parties the more appropriate it will be to split the pensions on the basis of income rather than capital.

Finally, it is a little known fact that on the making of decree absolute a party can request that their state pension is based on the national insurance contributions made by their ex spouse. This will be lost in the event of remarriage but be can be very valuable for those, such as women who have worked part time, who have made limited contributions themselves.

For advice on pension on divorce or any aspect of family law please contact the family law solicitor team at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

• Not wanting to become engaged unnecessarily in protracted litigation
• Not knowing what the other side will say
• The other side blaming you for misuse of goods
• The other side raising complex issues of either legal or expert evidence

You may feel that the above pointers are strong enough a deterrent for you to walk away…

However, our Top Tip is: Don’t be afraid of litigation! It is a staged process and there is nothing to lose. If you feel you have strong enough grounds to make a claim, Myers Lister Price Solicitors will help you. We will start by writing a Protocol Letter of Claim to your supplier.

We will take careful consideration of your claim and will set everything out in full in the protocol letter of claim. The letter will also require the Defendant to reply in full. It will raise allegations involving legal arguments or issues of expert evidence at the earliest stage.

Our expert lawyers will give you all the answers you need in order to decide whether or not you can profitably litigate your case. Our job at Myers Lister Price Solicitors is to work with you to avoid nasty surprises once proceedings are issued and costs can be awarded against you.

If you would like more information on this topic please contact us on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitots.co.uk

The tram which had been travelling at speed suddenly stopped without warning and in between stations, causing Mr A to lose his balance and be thrown backwards against a pole.

The driver/ operator of a vehicle carrying passengers has a duty to control their vehicle to ensure that their passengers are safe.  They have a duty to take care for the safety of their passengers and must not expose them to a danger or a foreseeable risk of injury through their actions.

Stagecoach Metrolink failed in their duty.  They admitted fault for the incident and a settlement figure was agreed to compensate my client for his consequential injuries.

If you have had an accident and need an accident compensation solicitor Manchester because you want to claim. Contact our personal injury solicitors Manchester on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpinjurylawyers.co.uk

Most shareholders have different ideas on when they would like to sell the company, and how much the company is potentially worth. There can also be a difference in opinion on the time and terms of any potential sale.

When a purchasers want to buy a private company they normally want to obtain 100% of the shares so as to be free of any minority shareholders’ involvement/interference with the management of the company.

A shareholders’ agreement can include “drag along rights” which would enable the majority shareholder (s) who wish to sell the company to a purchaser to force the minority shareholders to sell their shares to the potential purchaser.  This makes the purchase far more attractive to any potential purchaser, who as a result is likely to pay more for the company.

It is also normal to have “Tag along rights” within a shareholders’ agreement which would enable the minority shareholder (s) to force any potential purchaser to purchase their shares for the same sum and on the same terms in which that purchaser acquires  the shares held by the majority shareholders.

For more information on shareholders disputes contact our shareholders agreements solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Where the parties reach agreement in relation to financial issues, they will be referred back to their respective solicitors for advice on the terms of that agreement. Assuming that the solicitor advises that the settlement is appropriate a consent order will be drawn up, the terms approved by both parties and their legal representatives and then submitted to the court. Once endorsed by the court, the order is legally binding on the parties and enforceable in exactly the same way as any other court order.

The position relating to children is markedly different. Since the introduction of the Children Act 1989, the courts have bound by the “no order” principle which states that “Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders…with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all”. The policy is therefore to intervene as little as possible and to always consider whether making an order is necessary.

As a result the courts will not simply approve orders which reflect the wishes of the parents; there is no mechanism for it to do so. Agreements made in mediation are “without prejudice” and are not legally binding on the parties. It is therefore possible for one or both parents to ignore an agreement reached in mediation without facing any consequences. The parent who finds that the goalposts have been moved must consider whether further mediation is appropriate or whether it is necessary to issue a court application with the associated costs. This is no hypothetical situation. I have dealt with many cases where just this happened and I expect that my fellow family law colleagues will be familiar with scenario.

My question is therefore this: Is it time for the courts to enable parents to submit agreed contact orders for approval in much the same way that divorcing couples do with financial settlements? This would enable a parent to bring enforcement proceedings if the order is deliberately breached and whilst this is not ideal it does have the advantage of being potentially quicker and cheaper than a full contact application and impressing on both parents that an agreement should be abided by unless a significant change in circumstances justifies a change to the arrangements.

For more divorce advice online or via phone contact our divorce lawyers Altrincham on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk