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

Most businesses will depend on their shareholders to fulfil their roles within the company so that the business becomes successful.  Shareholders still have the right to maintain their shares within a company even if they resign from their post or role. This means that they can still benefit financially from the success of the business, even if they set up in competition to it…

A Shareholders’ Agreement can state within it that any employee shareholders who stop working for the company must sell their shares to the remaining shareholders, or back to the company. The price of the shares can depend on whether your relationship is good or bad with the parting shareholder.  Examples of a shareholder leaving on bad terms would be where they have resigned soon after being issued their shares or the shareholder has been fired due to matters of fraud, dishonesty or gross negligence.

Shareholders’ Agreements can be put in place to protect a company where a departing shareholder uses the company’s knowledge, contacts and experience to set up a competitor business and poach the company’s employees and customers. In order to protect the business the Shareholders’ Agreement would include a number or restrictive covenants which will stop shareholders doing the above for a certain time period after leaving the company.

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

For this reason it is common to wait for 2 years before applying for a divorce to avoid having to blame each other for the breakdown of the marriage (the only options available straight away are adultery or unreasonable behaviour). However, it is still important to try to deal with the financial aspects of a separation even if there are no divorce proceedings.

This is where a separation agreement comes in. It is a legally binding and enforceable agreement between two individuals designed to regulate their financial arrangements. To make the agreement as watertight as possible and guard against further financial claims once divorce proceedings are brought, it is necessary to follow 3 simple rules

• Both parties must have separate and independent legal advice
• There must be full and frank disclosure of each party’s financial circumstances
• The terms of the agreement must be broadly appropriate

Trying to unravel several years of financial activity in later divorce proceedings can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive. A separation agreement provides peace of mind in the interim and should always be converted into a court order within subsequent divorce proceedings.

The family law solicitor team here at Myers Lister Price are happy to talk to you about any separation or family law enquiry. Please feel free to contact us on 0161 926 9969 and you will be put through to one of our family law solicitors. Alternatively email us on info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk and one of our family law solicitors will contact you.

So what is the importance of pensions on divorce? Pensions are often the largest asset after the family home and in some cases they are the most valuable asset of all. It is vital therefore that they are given careful consideration on divorce. It is important to note that once a decree of divorce is made absolute a party is no longer treated as a spouse for the purpose of receiving any benefits payable to a spouse under a pension scheme and care should be taken to ensure that any pension assets are considered as part of a financial settlement before decree absolute or that steps are taken to protect the party at risk of losing benefits.

The starting point is to obtain correct information as to the value of all pensions whether occupational, personal or indeed state. It is also now possible to take into account pensions which are in the Pension Protection Fund. Many people are not aware that they may have an additional state pension (currently known as S2P and previously known as SERPS) or if they do know of its existence do not know its value which can be significant. Information as to a person’s state pension is obtained by submitting form BR19 and as to any additional state pension by submitting form BR20 to the Department for Work and Pensions.

In relation to personal or occupational pensions the scheme should be asked to provide a cash equivalent value. This represents the amount that would be transferred in the event that the scheme member were to change to a different scheme. In some cases, particularly for public sector pensions, the cash equivalent value is not a true reflection of the value of the pension. For example, with organisations such as the police or the armed forces, the scheme member may be able to retire on a full pension considerably earlier than the normal retirement meaning that they will draw the benefits for longer making those benefits more valuable. In this situation it may be necessary to seek actuarial advice on the true value of the pension benefits. If such a valuation is required it is the usual practice for this to be done on the basis of a joint instruction by both parties in order to avoid a conflict of expert evidence. The solicitors acting for the parties will agree the identity of the actuary to be instructed and the questions which the actuary is to be asked to answer. Once the actuary has provided his or her report the parties will be allowed to put questions to the actuary for the purpose of clarifying the report if required.

Once the value of all pensions has been ascertained consideration can be given to how the pension assets shall be treated. This will be subject of a further blog.

For advice on pension on divorce or any aspect of family law separation please contactour divorce solicitors altrincham at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The sanctions include personal liability for debts and criminal sanctions and it is difficult for advisers to provide directors with certainity over proposed new names because of the vague nature of the regulation.

A recent case (Advocate General for Scotland v Reilly) gives some guidance in this area.  Whether a name is a “prohibited name” is not just down to an analysis of whether similar words are used in the corporate or trading names. In this case, both companies used the word “Aquaseal” (or a variant thereof). However, the judge also looked at the fact that the two companies carried on similar (if not identical) trades and also that their place of business (Glasgow in both cases) was the same. These factors allowed his Lordship to conclude that the name of the newco did indeed “suggest an association” with the liquidated company. The implication may be drawn from this case, however, that if the “other” circumstances had been sufficiently dissimilar – for example, different trades or geographic location, the mere use of the word “Aquaseal” alone might not have been sufficient to bring this matter within the ambit of a prohibited name (s 216 Insolvency Act).

The punitive sanctions still remain an effective deterrent to advising use of words that could associate a company or director with a previous, failed, company.

For advice on this or any other company or commercial issue contact our company solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The result of a still slow property market, where sellers pull out as they fail to find a property to move to or get cold feet, is on the increase. We’ve certainly seen this happening more than ever before  and buyers are finding that they end up footing the bill, having paid for their survey, searches, mortgage fees and solicitors fees, only to have the rug pulled out from under them.

Unfortunately, there is little you can do when faced with a capricious seller. The trick is to get them under Contract as soon as possible so that is is harder to pull out.  You may think that every solicitor would do this for you but you would be surprised!  There can be a great difference between firms and their speed of service.  You need to find someone who is able to move swiftly, using technology and good file management techniques to bring the matter to exchange, without compromising quality of service.  The best way to find this is a personal recommendation, ask family and friends who they used and how quickly they were dealt with.

If you don’t know anyone to ask then ask your local estate agent. They are used to dealing with local solicitors and will know who seems to take their time over transactions and who keeps the ball in the air. Your agent can help at the outset of your purchase too .  If your Seller has not yet found a property to buy, ask the agent to clarify whether they are prepared to complete the sale and move into temporary accommodation or not.

If they are, ask the agent to get the seller to agree to include it in the Particulars of Sale so there is no confusion and everyone will know where they stand.  If they won’t agree to that, make it clear that you will not be paying for any survey or searches until they confirm that they have found a property and have paid for such items themselves.  In that way, the seller will have to prove that they are as serious as you are about the transaction.

If you need help buying a property then please contact our Residential Property Team on 0161 926 9969 or email us on info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Myers Lister Price Solicitors is expanding its litigation department with the appointment of commercial litigation expert, Paul Hatton.

Paul, 31, joins the Myers Lister Price team in Altrincham from KBL Solicitors in Bolton and will be specialising in commercial litigation for the firm and dispute resolution. Paul adds to the recent series of new recruits at Myers Lister Price as the company continues its ambitious growth strategy to double its annual turnover to £4 million.

To speak one of the litigation team call us on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

It could be worth reviewing your fixed voice and broadband contracts: the sale of new ARCs will be prohibited in relation to residential customers and small businesses from 31 December 2011, and that ACRs are to be removed from the market by 31 December 2012.

For more information contact our Contract Solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

There are clear benefits of efficiency, accessibility and costs savings.  However, as well as issues of control and responsibility there are some legal issues you should consider before moving important company data to the cloud.  One of the legal issues is regarding data security. It is vital that any cloud user understands not only how the provider protects your files but also how your provider will notify you if there is a breach and the steps that will be taken to remedy that breach.

You also need to make sure that data stored in the Cloud complies with your information governance policy.  For example, how can you verify that every copy of certain documents has been destroyed?  Furthermore, it is important to understand the process, cost and timing in relation to obtaining your data out of the Cloud once you move it there.  In moving to the cloud don’t overlook updating your data protection and information collection and storage policy.

Once the risks have been identified and addressed, the benefits can be fully enjoyed.

Contact our Company Solicitors for help protecting data, updating your policies and ensuring the legal framework for your IT provision is fit for purpose on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Insurers allege that referral fees are directly responsible for the enormous increase in motor insurance premiums.

Insurers themselves have been profiting from receipt of referral fees for several years by selling details of their customers to panel solicitors and in some instances they would sell details to claims management companies (‘the middle men’) who in turn sell these on again to a panel solicitor.

By April 2012, some change to referral fees is anticipated, whether that will be a direct ban or a cap on the amount that can be charged by a referrer for an individual’s claim following a non-fault accident.

It will be difficult for Personal Injury lawyers who have relied on paid referrals to find an alternative source of work to replace it.

One fear is that a ban will simply drive fees underground despite the MOJ having said that they intend to create an offence to be included in the legislation.

Kevin Walker, Head of Personal Injury at Myers Lister Price Solicitors (MLP) believes that ‘a ban will be a positive step to re-level the playing field’.

‘For far too long insurers and middle men have held all the cards in the personal injury sector selling on details of claims to select panel Solicitors.  The referrer only cares about the fee.  Often the Solicitor appointed is not the right Solicitor to deal with the claim owing perhaps to their lack of experience, expertise, understanding and personal approach or local knowledge’.

‘People are simply not aware that if they have an accident, they can choose which Solicitor they wish to represent them and go direct to them.   MLP commitment to client care is first-class and our bespoke one-to-one service ensures that our clients are ‘more than just a number’.

‘I see a referral fee ban as a great opportunity for MLP to increase brand awareness and compete for work more fairly.  Rather than paying referrers of work, I actively seek work with local businesses to develop a successful relationship moving forward as business partners’.

‘Our approach is simple – we get to know the client and understand their individual needs.  We also have in place a network of other like-minded, passionate professionals from whom we can draw additional specialisms, such as rehabilitation, where necessary and tailor the claim to help the individual client back to living’.

‘Whether we are dealing with a relatively minor whiplash injury claim or catastrophic injuries, including significant spinal and brain injuries, MLP offers an enormous wealth of experience in helping clients to achieve the very best outcome for their injury claim and ultimately to gain the maximum compensation to which they are entitled.

If you would like more infomation on injury compensation contact our injury compensation lawyers on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpinjurylawyers.co.uk

• Cost is a major barrier preventing parents on the lowest incomes from accessing childcare
• The high cost of childcare has a significant impact on most families, but for families in severe poverty the impact is particularly extreme
• Difficulties accessing childcare are significantly affecting the ability of parents in severe poverty to work, train or study
• The high cost of childcare means that work is not paying for the poorest families

Separation or divorce has a major impact on family finances since couples now face the costs of two households rather than one. The cost of childcare is a significant outgoing for most families and there may be worries whether the cost of childcare can be afforded following separation or divorce. So what financial help is available?

Tax Credits

For those working more than 16 hours a week help is available with up to 70% of the cost of childcare provided the care is registered or approved. Currently, if you pay childcare for:

• one child, the maximum childcare cost you can claim is £175 a week
• two or more children, the maximum cost you can claim is £300 a week

This means that the maximum help you can get for your childcare is:

• £122.50 a week for one child
• £210 a week for two or more children

But you won’t necessarily get the full £122.50 or £210 a week – the actual amount you get will depend on your income.

Child Support

Couples can agree a figure for child maintenance and this can be included in a court order following divorce. In the absence of agreement an application has to be made to the child support agency. Broadly, the non-resident parent should pay 15% of their net income for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three or more. This is subject to adjustment where the child/ren stays overnight with the non-resident parent or the non-resident has other children living with them. The power of the court to award child maintenance is limited.

Spousal Maintenance

Where the income of the party is insufficient to meet their needs (which could include child care costs) and the other party has disposable income available after meeting their own needs the court can award maintenance. The court does have a duty to consider in each case whether a “clean break” can be achieved i.e. no maintenance but in some cases a clean break may not be appropriate.

There are therefore resources available to a party to boost their income to enable them to meet their financial needs following divorce or separation including child care costs.

For advice on maintenance, divorce and family law contact our family law solicitors Altrincham at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or e mail info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Despite the fact that much of a compensation award may well be for the pain and suffering endured by the injured party or to provide ongoing care, the starting point is that assets received by way of compensation are included in the assets to be shared between divorcing spouses. Indeed, one of the most senior family judges commented last year that a compensation award “…is not sacrosanct”.

The court must then, however, look at the individual circumstances of the case. It is likely that there will be good reason to depart from the general principle of sharing to take into account the needs of the party who received the compensation award and simply to reflect the nature of the assets.

The basic principle is therefore that compensation awards cannot be “ring fenced” and ignored completely, but neither are they necessarily treated as a straightforward marital asset. In the case in question, the husband’s appeal against paying his wife £285,000 to enable his former wife to purchase a home for herself and the two children was partially successful. Although the sum to be paid was not reduced, the wife was ordered to sell the property once the children had grown up, with the husband receiving a sum equivalent to one-third of the equity.

The case demonstrates the complexities which can arise when attempting to make appropriate financial provision for both parties upon divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership.

For legal advice on divorce and all aspects of family breakdown contact the family law solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

• Business problems 1%
• Emotional / physical abuse 6%
• Extra marital affair 25%
• Family strains 2%
• Financial / money worries 5%
• Growing apart / falling out of love 27%
• Mid-life crisis 10%
• Stress 2%
• Unreasonable behaviour 17%
• Work-holism 4%
• Other 1%

Currently there is only one ground for divorce in England and Wales namely irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Parties wishing to divorce have to rely on one of five “facts”

1. Adultery

2. Unreasonable behaviour

3. Desertion for a period of two years

4. Separation for two years where both parties consent to the divorce

5. Separation for five years, no consent required

Couples are often surprised to find that simply growing apart from their spouse is insufficient ground for divorce and that if they wish to bring divorce proceedings immediately then they have to allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour i.e. “blame” their spouse. If the couple have indeed simply grown apart they may not wish to do this. If there is no third party involved then the divorcing party either has to allege unreasonable behaviour or wait until the parties have been separated for two years which for emotional or financial reasons they may not wish to do. Some of the other reasons cited in the survey such as business problems, emotional/ physical abuse, work-holism would be appropriate for inclusion in a petition based on behaviour and quite mild accusations can be sufficient. It is important to note that the spouse against whom the allegations are made does not have to admit the allegations and according to Protocols drawn up by the Law Society and Resolution (the organisation for specialist family lawyers) a draft of the proposed petition should be sent to the other party for their comments before the papers are sent to the court for issue .

So what might be the reasons for the change? Has there really been a drop in the number of affairs or could it be that, for whatever reason, people are more ready to give their partner a second chance? It will be interesting to see whether the trend continues particularly in the current economic climate.

For legal advice on divorce and all aspects of family breakdown contact the family law solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

For a start it is important that the divorce (or dissolution for civil partnerships) petition is completed correctly. This is important not only to ensure that the divorce or dissolution goes through smoothly but, in particular, Part 10 of petition is the Prayer (request) for:

a) the divorce or dissolution itself;

b) costs (if appropriate;  and

c) financial orders.

It is usual practice to leave the request for all types of financial order in the petition and a decision will be made at a later date which of the financial claims to pursue. The ability to apply for financial orders is lost once a party re-marries unless they have made the application before re-marriage. In the case of the Petitioner the Prayer is itself the application. For the Respondent a separate court application must be made.

Additionally, many people incorrectly assume that once the marriage or civil partnership is dissolved this disposes of financial matters as well. Financial claims are not disposed of until the court makes an order to that effect (unless a party’s claims have been lost on re-marriage).

Failure to obtain a court order can result in an unpleasant shock many years later when an ex partner claims capital provision or maintenance perhaps if they have fallen on hard times or the other party’s circumstances have improved either as a result of business success or inheritance. Readers may recall recent media reports of Nigel Page who paid his ex-wife £2 million out of a Euromillions lottery win.

Whilst such a claim may have little merit, the person against whom it is made still has the financial cost and stress of dealing with it. It is therefore very important where a couple divorce or end a civil partnership that they take care to seek legal advice at the outset so that the petition can be properly completed and to ensure that the financial aspects of the separation are recorded in a court order whether by consent or following the issue of court proceedings. If possible the settlement should be on a “clean break” basis which ensures that no future claims can be raised.

For further advice on finances and all aspects of divorce or civil partnership dissolution contact our divorce solicitors Altrincham at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Within a business it is the directors’ responsibility to manage and run the business. Directors have statutory duties such as acting in the best interests of the business. They do not however need to consult the shareholders by law on any management decisions that they make. This may not be an issue if all of the shareholders are directors, however if there are shareholders who are not directors this may be a problem… As some shareholders like to be kept in the loop when important decisions are going to be made about the business.

Within a Shareholders’ Agreement there are clauses that state who has the rights to decide certain issues relating to how to manage the business and what shareholders’ rights are. For example a common clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement would state that the directors must get consent from X shareholders before carrying out certain company matters such as:

a)      issuing new shares

b)      selling material assets of the business

c)       appointing new company directors.

With a Shareholders’ Agreement in place if a director does breach the agreement, the action that has been taken will still be binding on the Company , but the shareholders will be able to claim for damages for breach of contract against the person (director/shareholder) who made the action and against the company.

Thus showing that having a Shareholders’ Agreement in place helps solve difficult Management Issues.

If you would like to know more about Shareholders’ Agreements contact our Shareholders Disputes Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

a. Forget to do it or

b. Think it’s too expensive or

c. Think it takes too much time to do.

But is it essential to get one right at the start or can it be put off?

What is a Shareholders’ Agreement?

It is a contract formed and entered into between a business and some or all of its shareholders. A Shareholders’ Agreement can look at all sides of the affiliation between the parties from:

• regulating how the parties manage the business
• looking at how the parties make decisions
• planning the succession and the exit from the business of one or all of the parties
• setting out how the profits will be shared.

Together with the businesses articles of association a Shareholders’ Agreement will formulate the internal “rules” in which the business will be run on a day to day basis.

By putting a Shareholders’ Agreement into place at the early stages of setting up a business the process is a lot quicker, cheaper and easier to facilitate.  It will address what will happen in the event of a dispute between the business owners and what would happen if a business owner died or became critically ill.  These issues can have a devastating effect on the business and surviving parties.  Failing to plan can jeopardise the very survival of the business – putting not only the wealth of the business owners at risk but also jobs.

A large majority of new companies put off making a Shareholders’ Agreement until a later date, and more often than not cannot afford to nor have the time to do one further along the companies’ lifecycle. With time, the shareholders continue to growth the business and make it a success, their personal plans change and their outlook towards the business may differ making it hard to draw up a Shareholders’ Agreement as each shareholder may find it hard to agree on the terms of the agreement.  Therefore drawing up a Shareholders’ Agreement in the initial start up phase make more sense that to wait for changes to happen and disputes to arise.

There are four common areas of disputes that arise within a company which can be dealt with efficiently and effectively if a Shareholders ‘ Agreement is put into place from the offset these are:

1. Management
2. Departing Shareholders
3. Exit
4. Deadlock

The following blogs will look at each dispute separately.

If you would like more information on Shareholders’ Agreements please contact one of our Shareholder Agreements Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The gold medallist was attempting to cycle, row, run and swim from Los Angeles to New York within 16 days when the accident happened.

The 39-year-old was stressing the importance of cycle safety ahead of the weekend’s London to Surrey Cycle Classic race.  This race will also act as a dress rehearsal for the Olympic road cycle races next year.

Mr Cracknell said it was “selfish” of people not to wear helmets.  It’s very easy for people to get on to the bandwagon of pro-helmet or anti-helmet, do they work or don’t they.  I can say, from a personal point of view, they work.”

The rower said he could not remember the accident after being left with a serious head injury.

“When I came out of intensive care, I wasn’t me anymore.  My personality changed, I couldn’t make decisions and I had no motivation but luckily I was wearing a helmet, if I hadn’t been I would be dead.  The effect on my family over the last year since the accident has been far worse than for me.  You cannot control other people’s actions but what you can control is that you are wearing the right clothing, the right safety equipment and you are obeying the rules of the road.”

Here at Myers Lister Price Solicitors, Manchester we are specialised in helping people with head injury compensation claims as a result of an accident.

Head and brain injuries are often misunderstood, but we do understand and have the experience to fully appreciate this is a very specialist and sensitive area and we realise that life changing accidents occur and when they do, that they are traumatic for everyone involved.

Our expert personal injury claim solicitors Manchester are here to help anyone that has suffered a head or brain injury to achieve the maximum amount of head injury accident compensation to which they are entitled and to help them get back to living.

By working in conjunction with medical experts, rehabilitation providers, barristers and charities (to name but a few) our cyclist head injury solicitors can provide you with the support and assistance you need in all areas of your life  please call us on 0161 926 9969 or Email us now at info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

It has now been reported in a decision of Mr Justice Moylan that wealth inherited by the Husband from his father should not be shared by the Wife even though the couple had been married for 25 years. The source of the wealth was a manufacturing business established by the Husband’s father after the Second World War and sold in the 1980’s. The reasoning behind the decision was that the wealth was “not the product of their endeavours” and therefore the “sharing principle” of divorce settlements should not apply. The Wife was awarded £4.3 million, enabling her to buy a house costing £1.1 million, providing an income of £115,000 per year and additional “discretionary” spending.

The starting point in all cases is the statutory criteria laid down in section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In applying those criteria the three main principles that inform the distribution of the assets are need (generously interpreted), compensation and sharing. In this case Mr Justice Moylan based his award on a “generous assessment” of the Wife’s needs.

This case continues a trend of “big money” cases where Courts have excluded inherited assets from the distribution on divorce or limited the amount of such wealth that they have taken into account. It is of course worth remembering that the starting point in all cases is the statutory criteria and that in most cases the principle of need will predominate and dictate that inherited assets have to be taken into account to meet the needs of the parties. For those with greater wealth a properly drawn pre or post nuptial agreement and appropriate inheritance tax planning can go a long way to ensuring that inherited wealth is protected for future generations.

For further advice on finance, divorce and family law settlements contact our family law solicitor team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

In most instances people do not automatically acquire rights simply by living with someone for a set period of time. For instance, did you know that cohabiting couples have no right to:

• Maintenance (except in relation to a child)
• Provision of a home
• A share of their partner’s pension

And if the partner dies without making a will, the intestacy rules do not automatically make any provision for the one left behind.

The law simply does not regulate cohabitation in the same way as it does marriage and divorce.

It is possible to enter into a cohabitation agreement to regulate financial and other arrangements and provide peace of mind for both parties.

For more information contact our family law solicitor team on 0161 926 9969 or email us on info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

If you are a business owner, you need to ensure that your  business is structured appropriately and that you have provision in place to protect your intellectual property and ensure that your contracts of employment are adequate, amongst other issues.

Pre-nuptial agreements should be part of that strategy. Without one all your careful financial and business planning could come undone. Some consider them to be unromantic but the reality of the situation is that the Courts in England & Wales are renowned the world over as being the most generous in making financial provision for spouses.

Recent developments have changed the legal landscape so that couples can be expected to be held to the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement in many more instances than was previously the case. It is also now possible to insure against the possibility of an agreement being overturned by the Court.

Many people are unaware that in addition to pre-nuptial agreements, it is also possible to enter into post-nuptial agreements (after marriage) and also cohabitation agreements for couples that do not intend to marry.

Such agreements should not be seen as anything other than common sense. They reduce the possibility of lengthy and expensive litigation  on separation or divorce. They can (and should) be reviewed and amended as circumstances change, just as you would do with a will.

For advice on divorce and family law, feel free to contact a member of our family law solicitors on 0161 926 9989 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

So is the institution of marriage dead? It is common knowledge that the number of marriages has been falling in recent years. According to provisional figures for 2009 (the latest available from the Office for National Statistics) the provisional number of marriages registered in England and Wales was 231,490, currently the lowest since 1895. The final figure is expected to be 235,794 which is slightly lower than 2008. The number of marriages has fallen considerably over the last three decades. People are marrying later or not tying the knot at all. There has also been an increase in the number of people cohabiting either before marriage or instead of marriage.

However, the popularity of the Royal Wedding earlier this year implies that marriage is not completely out of favour. Figures suggest that the wedding was watched by more than 24 million people on BBC and ITV and 9 million people accessed the BBC’s web page.

It remains to be seen whether the Royal Wedding will result in an increase in the number of marriages in 2011 and future years and it should be remembered that cohabiting couples are more likely to split than married couples suggesting that marriage does act to strengthen a relationship. We think it is too soon to say Marriage – RIP

If you would like more information on divorce and family law then contact our divorce solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Such a clause can provide an opportunity for a tenant to either relocate to cheaper, more suitable premises or to simply renegotiate the terms of its existing lease.

In the current economic climate and particularly where the lease has an “upward only” rent review, this can be a very valuable provision for a tenant.

However, break options can be riddled with onerous conditions.  If any one of these conditions is not strictly complied with then the break may be frustrated, meaning that the lease will continue to the end of the agreed term.

To avoid this potentially costly scenario, tenants should use the current market to their advantage and try and minimise the number of conditions in the clause which need negotiating into the lease at the outset.  For instance, tenants should seek to remove such conditions as giving “Vacant Possession” or “Compliance with all Covenants”.  Such conditions are open to interpretation and can be very difficult to comply with as courts have stated that any conditions to be met by the tenant have to be satisfied strictly in order to work.

Tenants must also ensure how much notice they need to give in order to exercise the break.  Diarising this key date is absolutely vital.  If the deadline is missed by even one day then you will probably not be able to terminate your lease early.

In serving the break notice it is always advisable to seek legal advice as it can be uncertain who, where and how exactly you need to serve the notice, especially if your landlord has changed over the term of the lease.

For further information on drafting and exercising break clauses or any other property advice please contact one of our Commercial Property Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

The couple met in Moscow in 1981 and married 10 years later. They have two children aged 21 and 18 who live with Miss Besharova. The settlement was by consent and the couple were congratulated by Judge Eleanor King for reaching an agreement. She said “It does not matter whether the awards are thousands of pounds or hundreds of millions of pounds. At the end of the day if the husband and wife can reach agreement they can both live with, it bodes much better for their future welfare.”

Although the settlement was by consent and not as the result of a court determination, the case is latest in a string of cases involving foreign litigants seeking to divorce in the UK. Previously Lord Justice Thorpe, in the case of Elena and Ilva Golubovich, has criticised the use of the British courts by litigants who have a slender connection with the UK accusing both parties of embarking on a “crude race” in an attempt to gain the upper hand. “Unusually there has been no contest to establish the priority of either jurisdiction. Instead, each has seized the jurisdiction of choice without seeking to establish the priority of that jurisdiction. Each has preferred a race to the goal of divorce, each accelerating in the jurisdiction of choice whilst impeding or obstructing progress in the other jurisdiction.” London has been described as the “divorce capital” of the world after a series of high profile cases. It should be noted that in this case Mr Berezovsky and Miss Besharova are both resident in the UK.

In the Golubovich case Lord Justice Thorpe highlighted the pressures on the family justice system and questioned whether there should be a more stringent allocation of judicial time to such cases. Whilst a valid comment, perhaps the number of cases is something that the Courts have brought on themselves as a result of the very generous awards made in recent high profile cases such as Miller, Charman and Sorrell.

For divorce advice and information on financial matters contact our divorce solicitors at Myers Lister Price Solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

As advisers, we understand the personal pressures on a business owner and work hard with you and those around you, to understand and crystallise the reasons behind the decision to sell (or buy).  As a result we have published a “guide to selling your business” available on our website.  A hard copy is available on request.  The guide summarises the key issues that need to be considered when planning to sell your business and provides some hints and tips on avoiding common mistakes, including:

• · Whether selling is the right decision
• · The benefits of detailed planning and
• · Getting the timing right
• · Appointing advisers
• · Jargon busting
• · Identifying potential purchasers
• · The sale process itself and
• · Investing the proceeds

A client for whom we acted for recently on the sale of his business said:

“Just a personal note to say thank you for the way in which you (Stephen Attree) and Awena Parry handled the sale of my company. Your advice and guidance proved invaluable throughout. It was obviously a time of apprehension and uncertainty for myself, but the professionalism and the level of communication provided by both of you helped give me the confidence to see it through, and your outstanding negotiating skills mean I can now look forward to a relaxing and comfortable retirement. I would certainly recommend your company to others!”

If you would like more information on selling your business contact our commercial law solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Perhaps Kim is just a normal gal, with normal problems after all…!!

She will however be taking her lookalike Molinaro down in true Kardashian style by suing “Old Navy” for $15-$20 million for an intellectual property claim of “the unauthorised use of Kardashian’s name, likeness, identity and persona”.

Defending such a claim is likely to cost “Old Navy” a fair whack and is likely to put them and every other clothing company off ever using Molinaro again!!

All’s fair in love and war…

Intellectual Property and Privacy claims are on the rise, and are continuously making the front pages of the tabloids.  People and Companies are now more than ever keen to protect their privacy and identity. Whether you are an individual or a Company experiencing intellectual property or privacy issues, we at Myers Lister Price have a specialist team of Intellectual Property lawyers who can assist you.

For more information on intellectual property claims, speak to our intellectual property solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Resolution is an organisation of family law solicitors committed to resolving family law matters in a constructive and non-confrontational approach.

Amy’s article covers the future of family law from the perspective of a Young Resolution member. The article discusses cohabitation, mediation, the recent Family Justice Review and the impact the economic recession has had upon family law.

If you are interested in speaking to a member of our family law department they can be contacted on 0161 926 1504 or at info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk.

However if you’re in a normal partnership or joint venture these are just some of the many issues you need to consider and a properly drafted agreement is essential.  Paper Scissors Stone is an unusual mechanism for resolving disuptes but by no means the worst.  The worst is to have no mechanism and a business that is unable to function because its leaders and / or owners are unable to make decisions – in business not making any decision is often worse than making a bad decision.

Let’s hope Tom doesn’t regret the day he won the Apprentice and signed into a partnership with Lord Sugar.

For more information on business agreements speak to our partnership agreements solicitors on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Martin, 39, has moved from SAS Daniels and has been appointed as partner and head of the family department. He brings a wealth of legal experience to the firm and has been involved in mediating in a number of international family disputes, settlements and divorces.

Martin joins the Altrincham-based firm as the company celebrates 10 years in the town. His appointment is part of Myers Lister Price’s ambitious growth strategy to double its annual turnover to £4 million.

Martin Ridings said: “Myers Lister Price is a solid firm with an excellent reputation for client service. I’m looking forward to being part of team and helping to make us the firm choice for family work in the Altrincham area and beyond.

Myers Lister Price provides leading legal expertise for corporate and commercial issues for business owners and SMEs, as well as advice on personal matters such as family, wills, trust and probate and employment.

Michael Lister, managing partner at Myers Lister Price, said: “Martin is a highly regarded family lawyer and he will be a great addition to our already thriving family department. Over the next five years we plan organic growth across all our departments, Martin’s appointment is the beginning of this.”

Hailing from Macclesfield, Martin is an amateur photographer, keen cyclist and plays the piano in his spare time.

For more information on family law contact us on  0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

When considering a financial settlement, there are many factors that a court will consider alongside the court’s primary concern which will be the welfare of a child. One of the other most important factors a court will consider will be the “need” of the parties. For most people this will be housing need.

Mr Justice Mostyn felt that it would be “wrong and unfair” to prevent some of the husband’s pre-acquired wealth from being excluded from sharing within the financial settlement. In terms of considering what sum should be ring fenced for the husband it was necessary to consider what the wife’s needs were and how they could be reasonably met.

In circumstances where one party has pre-acquired wealth, Mr Justice Mostyn felt that one should consider whether it is fair to exclude any pre-acquired resource, and if it is, how much of the pre-acquired wealth should be excluded. Once that sum has been excluded the remaining matrimonial property balance should be divided equally. Finally, the fairness of the award should be tested by the overall percentage technique. The shorter the marriage, the greater the likelihood that the parties will be returned to their financial position before the marriage. In this case £1 million was excluded and this left the wife with 44.7% of the total assets. Each case will of course turn on its own set of facts.

Where parties are not yet married, it is possible, in some circumstances to protect wealth accrued before the marriage by entering into a Pre-Nuptial Agreement to potentially ring fence particular assets, such as business assets in anticipation of a potential divorce in the future.

For further advice about protecting your assets pre or post marriage please contact our family department on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

And the winner is…

John Wonnacott, 42, has been crowned as the winner of Altrinchams’ Drive 2 Thrive competition for his Local Creation business idea.

John’s Local Creation business idea will provide space for local artists (ranging from potters, jewellers, painters to fashion designers) which they could use to run classes, have workspace or have a gallery for retail.  The business will also create a local artistic community and act as a springboard for a local arts festival.

We would like to thank everyone that participated in this competition and we wish all the finalists good luck with their business ideas.

So what would the position be if the couple had divorced in the UK? Under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the Court has to take into account a number of factors.

a. The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including any increase in that capacity which it will be reasonable to expect the parties to take steps to acquire.

b. The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.

c. The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage.

d. The age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage.

e. Any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage.

f. The contributions which each of the parties have made or is likely, in the foreseeable future, to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family

g. The conduct of each of the parties is that conduct is such that it would be, in the opinion of the court, inequitable to disregard it.

h. In the case for proceedings of divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to each of the parties to marriage of any benefit which, by reason of a dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.

The issue often arises in relation to the question of whether a spouse should share in the other spouses future income and/ or bonuses. In P v. P the court included the Husband’s earned bonus and deferred shares in the assets shared equally but found that the marital partnership did not stay alive to enable the Wife to share in future resources where there was no justification either by reason of need or compensation. In H v. H the court declined to share an investment fund derived from bonus payments earned more than 12 months post separation nor the Husband’s loyalty bonus. However, in the case of B v. B Moylan J. included post separation assets acquired up to date of trial but awarded the Wife a reduced share of those assets.

It should be remembered that all these cases were “big money” cases and in most cases the primary aim will be meeting the needs of the parties and any children.

For advice on the financial aspects of divorce please contact the divorce lawyer team at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

There are a number of factors which a court has to take into account when considering any question with regard to children and these are commonly known as the Welfare Checklist.

• The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of their age and understanding)
• Their physical, emotional and educational needs
• The likely affect on the child of any change in their circumstances
• Their age, sex, background and any characteristics of them which the court considers relevant
• Any harm which they have suffered or are at risk of suffering
• How capable are the parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting their needs
• The range of powers available to the court under this act in the proceedings in question

For advice on any matters concerning children please contact our family law solicitors Altrincham at Myers Lister Price on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

As we get older, we are more likely to need increased support at home and may need to move into residential care.  Some residents’ care may be fully or partly funded by the NHS.  In other cases, the Local Authority will assess the resident’s income and assets to calculate whether they should contribute towards the care they are receiving.  Care home fees often run into thousands of pounds a year.  It is worrying to think that despite a lifetime of hard work and prudent money management, our assets may be used up in a short space of time.  If your house is left empty when you  move into residential care, you may even be forced to sell it to pay for your care.

However, it is possible to plan for the future and retain as many of your assets as possible within the family.  For example if you own your home jointly with your spouse, civil partner or partner, you could change the way you own the property.  You could then each make a Will to leave your respective half shares of the property in trust.  After the first person dies, if the survivor needed nursing home care, the Local Authority could only count half of the property towards the value of the survivor’s assets, as the other half would be owned by the trust.  Therefore, at least half the value of the property would be saved for future generations.

For more details, and other practical advice about planning for the future, please get in touch.  Our friendly and professional team of solicitors in the Wills, Trusts and Probate department have many years of experience in dealing with these issues and will make sure you have peace of mind.

For more information on the above contact our Wills, Trusts and Probate team on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

To identify any risks, the questions you need to ask include:

• Do employees have contact with competitors, for example, in the context of a trade association or partnership?
• Does the business share information with competitors?
• Are there any long-term exclusivity provisions in contracts?
• Does the business enter into agreements that restrict the terms (including price) on which goods or services may be resold?

If you think your business may be at risk or you are would like more information on the above call us on 0161 926 9969 or email info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

When a child is born parents will often turn to close family members or friends and ask them to be a god parent for their child. This Christian tradition has been a means of ensuring the children’s religious upbringing. In reality, as a god parent is usually close to the family they would normally take a general interest in the child’s wellbeing and development.

A god parent is not a legal appointment and if, for example, the parents were to die or become incapable of caring for the child the god parents would not automatically become responsible for that child.

Should the worse happen it is important to be reassured that your children would be cared for in accordance with your wishes. To plan for this, you should consider appointing a Guardian which would normally be done in conjunction with making a Will. A Guardian, compared with a god parent would assume legal rights and obligations in respect of a child if there were no surviving parent with parental responsibility for the child. It is important to note that the appointment of a Guardian will only take effect on the death of any parent with parent responsibility. However, a Guardian could apply for a Residence Order in respect of the child if it was considered in the best interests of the child to live with the Guardian rather than the surviving parent.

For further advice on these issues please do not hesitate to contact our family department on 0161 926 9969 or info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk

Need help complying with this and other regulations?  Try our Plan For Success and ensure your business is and remains fit for purpose.

Call us on 0161 926 9969 or email us on info@mlpsolicitors.co.uk for more information.

The team from Altrincham-based Myers Lister Price Solicitors was headed up by Tom Saville, an employment lawyer.

Known as the ‘Mountain Lawyers Platoon’, the team also consisted of personal injury lawyer Gill Peate, commercial property lawyers April Davey and James Robinson, family lawyer Judith Todd and civil litigation trainee James Petts.

The group of lawyers took part in the LawNet challenge, which saw them go head to head with other law firms to race to the 1,085 metres peak of Wales’ highest mountain. They also had to take part in a series of mental agility tasks along the route to make the challenge even more gruelling.

The Mountain Lawyers Platoon raised funds for Manchester Children’s Critical Care Fund (ManCCCF). The charity provides support for the paediatric critical care unit at Manchester Children’s Hospital.

Tom Saville, the head of the Mountain Lawyers Platoon, said: “It was a tough but enjoyable challenge.

“It was great to be able to raise money for such a worthy cause and there is already a team of lawyers at Myers Lister Price Solicitors in training for next year.”