Sunday, January 31st, 2010
Are you an ambitious solicitor who wants more out of life?
We are looking for solicitors like you to help us build our firm.
You will be self-motivated and driven to succeed with a good record of providing quality legal advice to your clients. In return we provide a well run law firm with a good and long established reputation and all the support you need to make your career a success.
You will have a client following and the desire and ability to grow that following. In return we will give you a very attractive performance based package allowing you to enjoy the financial rewards that you deserve.
Interested to know more?
Contact the Managing Partner in confidence, preferably with your CV and move your career to the next level.
Apply to djedwards@bbc-law.co.uk
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
For most people there is only one way to avoid this tax which is to make gifts and survive by seven years.
But there are solutions and our associated Chartered Financial Plaaning company DKM Wealth Limited which is regulated by the Financial Services Authority have a number of solutions.
These are examples of ways that DKM Wealth can help:
Many clients are reluctant to give away their capital in case they need it later in life – for example if they go into care. However the majority of people do not go into care. There is a perfect solution for such clients using a trust that avoids tax after seven years survival, but which allows the client access to their capital. This trust may also be closed in favour of the beneficiaries at any time, unlike the discounted gift trust sold by so many providers.
Other clients may be willing to make gifts but feel fear that the recipient may lose the capital. A good example is a gift to a child with a rocky marriage, or perhaps one with a business in difficulties – very common at present. These clients may benefit from a discretionary trust and our association with DKM Wealth, chartered Financial planners regulated by the Financial Services Authority means that you may set this up very cost effectively and obtain advice about sensible investments.
Some clients have only their homes and pensions so they cannot see how to make gifts. For these clients and subject to very specific independent advice, equity release coupled with a trust may be a practical solution. Such a solution should only be explored with the involvement of the whole family because it could backfire if property prices fell and you died early.
For clients who are very elderly and for whom survival by seven years seems unlikely, it is possible to invest in certain listed shares on the Alternative Investment Market (the “junior” stock market). This strategy is very risky as such shares are volatile and there may not be any market for them when you want to sell.
For all clients, make gifts every year – at least £3,000 is exempt and if you can show that you can make more gifts than this from income, without depleting capital, you may do so. If you seek to rely on this little-used exemption, make sure you keep meticulous records of your income and outgoings and keep them until at least seven years are up.
Finally, do something and do it with specific advice for your own unique circumstances.
If you would like more information on advice on the steps you can take contact David Edwards at Burt Brill & Cardens or DKM Wealth Limited
Friday, November 27th, 2009
A father who claimed a judge in contact proceedings was biased against him has won his appeal to have the case heard again by a different judge.
The father had applied for contact with his son. The boy’s mother opposed the application because she said the father had subjected her to domestic violence. A fact-finding hearing was held to examine the allegations.
The judge accepted the mother’s allegations and said they were so serious that the father’s application for contact was almost bound to fail. The father then asked that the judge should step down from hearing the case because he had shown bias against him.
He said that the judge had effectively decided the issue of contact before the full hearing had even begun. He asked that the fact-finding hearing be heard by a different judge who could then go on to determine the issue of contact.
The judge refused so the father took the case to the Court of Appeal. It has now ruled that although the judge had not shown any bias, he had been wrong in making what appeared to be a decision on the issue of contact without having heard any detailed evidence or argument.
The Appeal Court held that the judge’s findings about the domestic violence should stand, but the issue of contact should be determined by a different judge.
Please contact us if you would like more information about this or any aspect of family law.
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
A 66-year-old receptionist who brought an age discrimination claim against a medical practice has received £6,000 in an out-of-court settlement.
Ruth McNeil left a permanent job with Marks and Spencer last September to work for the practice in Lothian in Scotland. However, when she presented her P45 giving her date of birth she was told she could not be offered a contract.
She brought a claim of age discrimination with the backing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland.
Ms McNeil said: “To have been offered a job I was really looking forward to on the basis of a successful interview, only to be told that due to my age I could not be kept on was devastating.
“I was never asked my age at the interview and never thought, given my skills and experience, that it would have been relevant. To make matters worse I was told that I did not look my age and it was suggested that had they known I would never have been employed.”
The medical practice has agreed to pay her £6,000 compensation. The practice cannot be named under the terms of the settlement.
Discriminating against employees and job applicants on grounds of age is illegal under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
Please contact us if you would like more information about this issue or any other matter relating to employment law.
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
The current system of funding care for the elderly has often been criticised because some people have to sell their homes and pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for their care while others pay nothing at all.
It means that for some people, the inheritance they hoped to pass on to their children gets used up in care costs.
Now the Government has begun a public consultation on proposals to reform the system.
The proposals are contained in a Green Paper called, Shaping the Future of Care Together, which highlights the time bomb facing us as the population ages. It estimates that there will be 1.7m people requiring care by 2026.
Their care bill will be too great for the taxpayer to support and so the Government is looking at three possible ways to meet the cost. One involves a dual approach in which the state and the individual share the costs, the second is an optional insurance scheme which would cost individuals up to £25,000 over a working lifetime and the third is a compulsory insurance scheme which would cost up to £20,000.
People who pay into the insurance schemes would receive care for free when they needed it.
The proposals may be a step in the right direction but are still only at the consultation stage and with an election coming up before too long, they may never come into effect.
It means that the current system is likely to remain in place for several years.
The capital threshold at which the elderly start paying for their care is only £23,000 – only a fraction of the cost of an average house - so it means some old people will still have to sell their homes while others get care for free.
Even if one of the new proposals does eventually come into effect, it will only cover the cost of the care – other expenses like accommodation and food will still need to be met by the individual or their families.
One way to ease the problem is for people to start planning now for their old age so they can minimise the cost and the stress. For example, it may be possible to protect some assets by using trusts. It needs careful planning but could save elderly people and their families thousands of pounds in future.
Please contact us if you would like more information about funding care for the elderly.
Saturday, November 21st, 2009
Two companies belonging to the same group have failed to exercise their right to break a commercial lease because only one of them served notice on the landlord.
One of the firms involved was dormant and was a completely owned subsidiary of the other, active company. Together they had been granted a ten-year lease on a warehouse.
The active company then served notice on the landlord that it wanted to exercise the break clause. The name of the dormant company was not mentioned in the notice.
The landlord argued that the notice was invalid as it did not come from both companies. The companies responded by saying that a reasonable landlord would have known that giving only one name had simply been an administrative error, especially as one of the companies was dormant, and so the notice was valid.
However, the High Court has ruled in favour of the landlord. The judge said the notice was invalid because it created real doubt as to whether it came from both companies, especially as there had been nothing in the communications between the two sides to suggest that a reference to one of the companies should be taken as a reference to both.
Please contact us if you would like more information about commercial leases or any aspect of commercial property law.
Friday, November 20th, 2009
A woman who helped her brother buy a house has been told she has no claim on the property and cannot force it to be sold to enable her to get her money back.
The house was bought in the brother’s sole name in 1999. The sister said she contributed a substantial sum of money towards the purchase on the basis of an express agreement that he would hold the property on trust for her.
She said she didn’t register an interest in the property at the time because she had complete trust in her brother and believed that he would reimburse her.
The property was then let out for about five years with the sister acting as her brother’s agent.
However, in 2004, the brother decided to move into the house with his wife. The relationship between sister and brother then broke down. The sister sought an order for the sale of the property so she could get her money back. She told the court she would not have made such a substantial contribution towards the purchase price if she had not thought she was acquiring an interest in the property.
However, the court has ruled against her. It held that, on the balance of probabilities, the money she had contributed was no more than an unsecured loan for which she had expected a substantial commercial return, to be earned from letting the property.
If it was not a loan, it was difficult to see why the property had not been purchased in both names. The sister’s claim for a beneficial interest in the property was therefore dismissed.
The case highlights the need for people to draw up the appropriate legal documents when making substantial investments of this kind. Casual verbal arrangements can become blurred and lead to disagreements several years down the line – even among close family members as in this case.
Please contact us if you would like more information about this or any aspect of buying and selling property.
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
UK companies are stepping up their approach to dealing with bad debts, according to a new survey by the business information provider, Creditsafe.
Its research shows that one in four businesses intend to take legal action over the coming year to enforce the recovery of outstanding debts. The tougher approach comes as six out of 10 businesses believe they will have to contend with an increase in defaulted payments for the rest of this year.
The survey also revealed that one in five businesses intend to introduce more stringent penalties for late payment. In some cases, this will involve charging interest at 100%. The Creditsafe research discovered that a television production agency has modified its terms and conditions to allow it to charge 100% interest on invoices not paid within its 30 day settlement period.
A Creditsafe spokesman said: “While enforcement of contractual penalties used to be a last resort, increasingly companies are embracing legal action as soon as payments slip beyond the timeframe set out in their terms and conditions.
“We could see the courts increasingly overburdened with claims and increasing numbers of involuntary insolvencies as firms demand immediate payment of outstanding invoices.”
The survey confirms that more and more businesses are prepared to take action to protect their liquidity position and, of course, it is the firms who are the most proactive who are the ones most likely to recover money owed to them. Firms who sit back and wait are the ones most likely to lose out.
In most cases, the matter can be resolved without having to go to court. A solicitor’s letter outlining the action that may be taken if the overdue amount is not paid is often enough to ensure that the debt is settled promptly.
Please contact us if you would like more information about recovering debts.
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
A woman has received £13,500 for the pain she suffered after some gauze was left in a surgical wound following an operation.
The woman had surgery to treat a sinus problem at her local hospital in 2005. The hospital informed nurses at the woman’s GP practice that the wound had been left open and lightly packed with Proflavin gauze.
The nurses were asked to remove the gauze after a set time and then continue to dress the wound as required. A nurse then dressed the wound as requested but did not remove the gauze before doing so.
The wound was dressed again several times over the next two months but started producing discharges. Eventually, the wound became unbearably painful and the GP advised the woman to attend the hospital accident and emergency department.
The mistake was then discovered and she had to have further surgery to remove the gauze. As well as her physical pain, she suffered psychiatric injury and distress.
The Primary Care Trust admitted liability and the woman accepted £13,500 compensation in an out-of-court settlement.
Monday, November 16th, 2009
A company is to receive compensation from a former director who set up a rival firm.
The company provided engineering and technical personnel for clients including the United States Defence Department. Its operations director, who was also an employee of the company, was responsible for the management of the business.
While still working for the company, the director set up a rival firm. He didn’t tell the company that he had done so. He also approached some of the company’s customers and took confidential documents.
The company claimed damages for conspiracy, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty – that is, the duty directors have to act in the best interest of the company employing them.
The court held that once he had resigned, the director was entitled to compete against his former company in any way he chose. However, he had been in breach of his duty because while working for his former company, he had failed to alert them that he was about to set up a rival business.
He had also taken documents and approached customers.
The court granted an order for damages to be assessed and also granted an injunction preventing the director from providing rival services until a year after his resignation.
© Copyright 2009 Burt Brill & Cardens Solicitors