Research commissioned by the Ministry of Justice says the perception of bias is misplaced and most men are successful in securing contact arrangements for their children.

The report says that 90% of contact arrangements are agreed between the parents without any court involvement. That leaves one in ten parents, usually fathers, seeking a court order because it has not been possible to reach a voluntary agreement.

The study, which was carried out by the Oxford University Centre for Family Law and Policy,
found that there was no evidence to suggest that the courts were biased against these fathers. Instead, it was clear that courts start from the principle that there should always be contact unless there are over-riding reasons to the contrary.

Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said: “The well-being of children is at the heart of the family justice system. Courts should be the last resort for people involved in contact disputes, as mediation can be quicker and less stressful.
 
“Where contact cases do come to court, the child’s welfare is always the paramount consideration. Clearly in some circumstances, such as where there is poor parenting or even abuse, contact can be very damaging.

“The government firmly believes that children should not be denied meaningful contact with their other parent, where this is safe.”

As the minister points out, mediation can be very helpful in these difficult situations. A solicitor acting as mediator can help couples resolve differences in an amicable manner. This is not only less stressful for the parents, it is also much better for the children who can easily be adversely affected by conflict between mum and dad.

Parents who cannot reach a voluntary solution can apply for a contact order under the Children Act 1989. The Act adheres to the welfare principle, which means that it considers the child’s needs to be the paramount consideration.

Please Marie Stock if you would like more information about contact arrangements, mediation or any aspect of family law.

It means he is now limited in the amount he can recover through service charges.

The tribunal was told that the landlord had instructed a managing agent to oversee work at the flats. The agent wrote to the tenants to inform them about the project and to notify them that the estimates for carrying out the work were available at its office for them to inspect.

The letter to the tenants didn’t include copies of the estimates. The tenants’ solicitor wrote to the agent saying he had failed to comply with the statutory requirement to consult with tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The agent responded by sending copies of the estimates to the solicitor and then proceeded with the works.

Later, the solicitor wrote to the agent saying the tenants objected to the agent appointing a sole trader to carry out the work. It then turned out that the work was unsatisfactory and additional repairs had to be carried out.

The case came before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which held that the landlord had failed to comply with the consultation requirements and so there was a limit to the amount he could recover from the tenants through service charges.

The landlord appealed to the Lands Tribunal saying he had complied with the consultation requirements by virtue of the agent having written to the tenants informing them that copies of the estimates were available for inspection at its office. He further submitted that even if he had failed to comply, it was reasonable to dispense with the requirement because there was no evidence to suggest the outcome would have been any different if the tenants had seen the relevant estimates.

However, the Lands Tribunal held that the landlord had failed to comply with the consultation requirements because the estimates had only been available at the agent’s offices which were more than eight miles away from where the tenants lived.

The Act required that such documents should be displayed in a convenient and obvious place where they would be likely to come to the attention of the tenants quickly and easily. Placing the documents more than eight miles away did not meet that criteria and therefore there had been no full consultation period.

For advice on all commercial property matters contact Paul Slot.

Do not forget that we are here to help all our clients with value for money solutions to legal problems.

We are offering special reduced rate telephone advice consultations so if you are worried about problems with property, divorce, employment or about protecting your wealth then speak to us now.

If you would like a telephone consultation on a legal problem at a low fixed price per minute then for

advice about

- employment problems, or
- disputes 

contact Jonathan Friend

and for

- property advice,
- family problems or divorce
- and all other matters

contact Marie Stock

We wish all of our clients and colleagues a Happy and successful New Year.

The houses on the development had been sold subject to two restrictive covenants. The first was that homeowners could not erect buildings without the approval of the management company; the second prevented homeowners doing anything that would annoy or create a nuisance to other people on the estate.

One homeowner was then granted planning permission to build a three-story extension. He also obtained approval from the management company on condition that the development would be in keeping with existing properties and the boundaries would not be altered.

However, the neighbours objected because they felt the extension would spoil their views over a nearby river and so breach the covenant by causing an annoyance. The homeowner argued that the permission granted by the management company should take priority over the nuisance and annoyance element of the covenant and so the development should be allowed to go ahead.

The court, however, ruled in favour of the neighbours. The judge held that there was no reason why both elements of the covenant should not apply so that a development could only go ahead if it had the approval of the management company and did not cause a nuisance to others on the estate.

The next issue to resolve was whether or not the interference with the scenic views would cause annoyance. The judge held that most reasonable people would say that it would indeed cause annoyance within the meaning of the covenant and the development should therefore not be allowed to go ahead.

For guidance all property matters and property disputes contact Paul Slot who will be happy to help you.

Stephen English claimed that some of the staff at a Portsmouth firm started calling him names and making homophobic comments to him after they found out that he had gone to a public school and that he lived in Brighton.

Mr English found the taunting so distressing that he felt he had to give up his job as a salesman. He brought a claim of harassment under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. However, the tribunal ruled against him because he was not actually gay and his work colleagues did not believe him to be gay even though they taunted him.
 
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the ruling but it also gave Mr English permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal so the law could be clarified.

The Court of Appeal has now ruled in Mr English’s favour. It said it did not matter whether or not Mr English was gay. The key point was that he had repeatedly been taunted as if he were gay. That was intended as an insult to his dignity and made his working environment intolerable.

Mr English was supported throughout the case by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Its Group Legal Director, John Wadham, said: “Bullying is unacceptable, whatever your background - gay, straight, black or white. The fact that Stephen English’s colleagues knew he wasn’t gay does not excuse their behaviour, nor should it prevent him from enjoying the same rights to dignity and respect at work.”

Anyone who has been subjected to abuse or unfair treatment because of their race, age or sex maybe entitled to claim compensation and should seek legal advice. Please contact Jonathan Friend if you would like more information.

The case involved Sheffield City Council and one of its tenants. Under the terms of the lease, the authority had covenanted to repair the exterior of the building and also to carry out improvements if it thought them to be desirable.

The reasonable costs of such work would be payable by the tenant through the service charge. The authority informed the tenant that it intended to replace the windows in her block of flats to improve the thermal comfort and lower heating costs. She was given an estimate of the cost of the work.

The tenant then challenged the reasonableness of the plan under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) held that the windows weren’t part of the exterior and therefore the authority had no obligation to repair or renew them. It also found that the reasonable cost of carrying out the work was less than the authority had suggested and should be reduced.

The authority appealed to the Lands Tribunal which held that under the Housing Act 1985, external windows were part of both the exterior and the structure of the building to which they belonged. The tribunal was wrong therefore to conclude that the reasonable cost of carrying out the work could not be recouped by the authority as part of the service charge. However, the tribunal had been right to say that the amount the authority wanted to charge was not reasonable and should be reduced.

The authority therefore won its appeal as far as its right to carry out the work was concerned but lost in relation to the reasonableness of the amount it wanted to charge the tenant. The LVT’s order reducing the figure was allowed to stand.

The new measures are part of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 and are effective from 8th December 2008. They’re designed to help resolve conflicts between parents over such things as who the child should see, how often and under what conditions.

The changes mean that courts now have the power to direct a parent in a dispute to undertake a contact activity. They will also be able to attach an activity condition to contact orders.

If one of the parents suffers a financial loss from the other’s failure to comply with a contact order then the court will be able to award compensation. The court will also be able to impose an unpaid work requirement on the person who breaches the contact order.

The Government says the background to the changes is the principle that the “well-being and interests of the child are of paramount importance” rather than the personal interests of either parent.

Please contact Marie Stock if you would like more information about the new powers or any aspect of family law.

The Consumer Rights Directive is intended to harmonise rules in several important areas such as protection against unfair contract terms and rules on faulty goods. There will also be new rules on internet shopping and door-step selling.

The proposed measures include a 14-day cooling off period for goods bought online or on the doorstep and more consistent protection when goods are not delivered. 

Another important proposal concerns a consumer’s rights when goods are found to be faulty. At present in the UK, the customer has the right to reject the faulty goods and ask for a refund. The European Commission is proposing a different system which would allow the trader to offer to repair or replace the faulty item. A refund would only be obligatory in a more limited set of circumstances.

The consultation period ends on 2nd February.

Meanwhile, the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has asked the Law Commission to consider legal remedies for consumers who discover that an item they buy doesn’t conform to contract.

We shall keep clients informed of developments.

The court heard she still had a scar four years after the treatment.

The woman, who was 46 when the incident happened, had gone to the salon for massage therapy that involved her lying on hot stones. Following the treatment, she was aware of a tingling sensation on her back and then discovered red areas and blisters on her skin.

The therapist apologised and applied a cold flannel to the affected areas. The woman’s pain and discomfort increased when she went home and her GP later confirmed that she had suffered burns to her back.

The woman, who is now aged 50, experienced pain and discomfort for about 15 months after the therapy. She became very sensitive about the appearance of a scar that had formed and worried about it showing through light clothing. She felt restricted in what she could wear and was unable to go swimming because she was self-conscious about her appearance.

The salon disputed liability and negligence. It claimed the woman had extra sensitive skin and had failed to fill out its questionnaire correctly.

The court ruled in the woman’s favour and awarded her damages of £3,863 to compensate for her pain, suffering and loss of amenity together with her care costs and other expenses.

If you are unfortunate enough to have suffered injury contact Steven Kinch.

Stephen English, who is married and has three children, worked as a salesman for a company in Portsmouth. He claimed that his work colleagues started calling him names and making homophobic comments to him after they found out that he had gone to a public school and that he lived in Brighton.

Mr English found the taunting so distressing that he felt he had to give up his job. He made a complaint of harassment under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 but the tribunal rejected his claim because he was not actually gay and his work colleagues did not believe him to be gay even though they taunted him.
 
This meant he was not protected by the regulations because the taunting was not due to his sexual orientation but rather because his colleagues were reacting to stereotypical factors such as his having attended a public school and the fact that he lived in Brighton.

That ruling was upheld by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. However, Mr English’s case has now been taken up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission which believes the law needs to be clarified.

The Court of Appeal has now heard the case and is expected to deliver its ruling within the next few months. A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said a positive ruling would help people who suffer harassment based on stereotypes.

John Wadham, the Commission’s Group Legal Director, said: “Sustained homophobic bullying is unacceptable in the workplace. The fact that Stephen English’s colleagues knew he wasn’t gay doesn’t excuse their behaviour – the harassment he suffered was distressing.

“By supporting Mr English’s case, we hope to clarify the law to protect those who suffer sustained harassment based on old-fashioned stereotypes.”

This is an unusual case and the Appeal Court ruling should help clarify the protection offered by the law in these circumstances. However, the law already offers a great deal of protection against discrimination on several grounds including sex, age and race.

Please Kevin Smyth if you would like more information about anti-discrimination legislation or any aspect of employment law.