http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php Copyright 2012, Burton & Dyson Solicitors Burton & Dyson Solicitors en-US SPHPBLOG 0.5.1 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111130-140528
Rupert St John Webster, 39, believes that under the rules of primogeniture – the ‘right’ of a firstborn child (usually the son) to inherit over their siblings – he should rightfully own 17th century manor house The Priory, in Taunton, Somerset.

He told the High Court that the property, which belonged to his grandparents, Anthony and Valerie St John Webster, had been promised to his father, Valentine, in the 1970s. His father, in turn, promised the estate to him.

Valentine died in 2006 – 11 months before his own mother, who still owned the property. Mr St John Webster maintains that The Priory should now be passed to him as the next surviving male heir.

However, this is not a view shared by other family members, including two aunts and an uncle, who say that Anthony and Valerie wanted to break with family tradition by leaving each of their children an equal share of the estate.

The dispute itself does not relate to Valentine’s will, of which Mr St John Webster’s mother, Jennifer, was the sole beneficiary, but to a trust set up by Anthony and Valerie in 1992, setting out their wishes.

Mr St John Webster is contesting both the trust, which he says contradicts assurances made to his father more than 30 years ago, as well as the final version of his grandmother’s will, which leaves him just a fraction of The Priory. He claims that she was unduly influenced and may not have been aware of what she was agreeing to when she made this version of her will just over a year before her death.

A barrister acting for one of Mr St John Webster’s aunts told the High Court that there was evidence that Mr St John Webster himself had tried to put undue influence on his grandmother to change her will.

The case continues, but it is clear that, whatever the outcome, someone is going to end up feeling aggrieved. More importantly, a family may find itself irreparably damaged as a result.

"For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

"







]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111130-140528 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:05:28 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111130-140528 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111129-122356
The decision will have significant implications for employees across the country who had believed that their equal pay claims were blocked by the six-month Employment Tribunal time limit after three appeal judges ruled that such claims could be heard in the High Court, which has a six-year time limit.

The claim was brought by 174 female ex-employees of Birmingham City Council. The women found favour in the High Court. However, the council appealed against the original decision, arguing that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine such matters.

Such claims could only be heard by the Employment Tribunal, the local authority said.

However, the appeal was dismissed by appeal judges Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Davis and Dame Janet Smith, who unanimously decided that Birmingham City Council had failed to demonstrate that the High Court judge’s interpretation of the 1970 Equal Pay Act was wrong.

Lord Justice Mummery commented that it was “extraordinary” that this was the first time the issue had been raised in the 40 years since the Act came into force.

As Birmingham City Council’s own lawyers have acknowledged, the ruling could pave the way for significant numbers of employees to bring claims against former employers without being restricted to the six-month tribunal time limit.

It will be interesting to see how many more cases emerge as a result.

"For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

"
]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111129-122356 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:23:56 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111129-122356 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111128-144440
We have all read articles about school trips being cancelled due to health and safety fears, while many people wanting to hold their own street parties to celebrate the royal wedding in April had their plans thwarted for similar reasons.

Critics say that legislation is often applied overzealously, resulting in people being prevented from participating in activities they have previously enjoyed without suffering so much as a scratch.

However, more than half of the UK’s 200-odd health and safety regulations could soon be scrapped after the Government launched a consultation into whether current legislation should be changed.

The Government has indicated that it would like to see the first regulations removed from the statute book within the next few months, although it is anticipated that any reduction exercise would take three years overall.

The consultation follows the publication of a review by Professor Ragnar E Lofstedt, director of the Centre for Risk Management at King’s College, London.

He concluded that the problem with health and safety regulations lies more in the way they were interpreted and applied, rather than in the actual rules themselves.

The report also recommends that employers should not be held responsible for damages where every possible step has been taken to manage risks, while self-employed people whose work poses no risks to others should be exempt from the rules altogether.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said that the Government accepted Prof Lofstedt’s recommendations and wanted to introduce ‘common sense’ reforms placing greater emphasis on people taking responsibility for their own actions.

A panel is also being created whereby businesses can challenge health and safety rulings made against them if they disagree with them.

Of course, the real question is, will reducing the number of regulations ensure the continuing safety of people in the workplace? Only time will tell.

"For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

"


]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111128-144440 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:44:40 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111128-144440 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111125-152812
This has been reflected by an increase in the lending of e-books by libraries across Britain. For example, 87 of the 151 public library authorities in England are either already lending e-books or plan to do so by the end of the year – up from just 30 in March 2010.

On the surface, this seems like an ideal scenario. There’s no need for libraries to physically store large quantities of books, and the individual doesn’t have to worry about paying fees for forgetting to return the book, as it is just deleted from their reader at the end of the loan period.

However, there is a major blot on the landscape in the form of e-book piracy. As a result of concerns about copyright infringement, the publishing giant Penguin has decided not to make its new e-books available to libraries across the US and UK. Digital versions of older books will still be available, as long as the files are held behind firewalls.

Of course, protecting the ownership of ideas and creations is vital in the business world – a fact acknowledged by Penguin: “Our overriding aim is to strike the right balance between access to our content and the protection of our authors’ copyright.”

Unfortunately, as the popularity of e-books has soared, so piracy has become an increasing problem. E-books are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM), which controls which devices they can be read on and is designed to prevent the copying or sharing of e-books.

However, hackers can remove the DRM using software tools, convert the content to formats used by different types of reader and then distribute the e-book online for others to download. Furthermore, it is perfectly easy for a hacker to obtain a library card, and then break the coding so that the e-book isn’t deleted when the loan period finishes.

Therefore, with DRM not proving much of a barrier to piracy, it is unclear what the future will hold in terms of copyright protection and how publishers will continue to respond to these challenges as e-books become increasingly popular.

For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111125-152812 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:28:12 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111125-152812 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111124-095316 With troubles in the euro zone, unrest in Egypt and testimony from witnesses at the Leveson Inquiry dominating the headlines over the last few days, the fact that this is Road Safety Week has probably slipped under the radar for many of us.

Sadly, far too many families can never forget just how dangerous our roads can be. Last year, 1,850 people were killed in road accidents in Britain. Another 22,000 or so were seriously injured.

As the theme of this year’s Road Safety Week – Too Young to Die – highlights, many young lives are ended far too soon, or changed forever by serious injuries, as a result of road accidents. Shockingly, last year crashes accounted for 21 per cent of all deaths in people aged from 15-24 and 38 per cent of all non-medical deaths.

Where dangerous driving causes a serious accident involving a death or injuries leading to lifelong pain or disability, current sentencing policy has long been felt by many not to reflect the severity of what has occurred: the offence of dangerous driving carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Now that is about to change. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced last month that a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving will be introduced, carrying a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The vast majority of us who take to the roads do so in a safe and responsible way. There would be few who would disagree that where dangerous drivers cause injuries that rip lives and families apart, the punishment should fit the crime.

For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com


]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111124-095316 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:53:16 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111124-095316 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111123-102102
It is understood that Vince Cable, the business secretary, will announce today a consultation on proposals to relax the rules for micro companies following a recommendation on employment law from venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft.

The proposal is designed, according to the Coalition government, to “kick-start” the economy and encourage the creation of start-up companies.

However the central recommendation from the report – that employers should be able to sack unproductive staff without explanation – has been blocked by Nick Clegg.

In his speech today, Cable will say the Government has agreed others areas of employment law reform.

Interestingly he will outline a consultation on introducing “protected conversations” to allow employers to discuss an employee’s poor performance or retirement in an open way that could not be used in a tribunal claim.

Tribunals will also be overhauled, with all claims initially going to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Under the plans only one judge would be used in unfair dismissal claims and all witness expenses would be ended.

A further consultation will also be launched on simplifying the use of compromise agreements in which employers pay an agreed amount to an employee if both sides agree that a contract of employment should end.

The radical reforms are sure to anger Trade Unions, but business experts say the package will make it easier for businesses when taking on, managing and letting go their staff, while also being fair to workers.


"For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

"

]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111123-102102 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:21:02 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111123-102102 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111122-124345 A woman whose husband went missing after a night out in Manchester eight years ago has been telling MPs today how his disappearance has affected her life.

Vinny Derrick, aged 28, was last seen leaving a nightclub while on a work night out in August 2003. This morning, his wife Vicky appeared as a witness before the Justice Select Committee as it held its first evidence-gathering session in its inquiry into presumption of death – the process by which people can register a death where there is no body, and resolve their affairs, including financial, marital and probate issues.

Mrs Derrick’s evidence to the committee, which is exploring issues including whether a change in legislation in England and Wales is needed, highlighted the way she had struggled to sort out her affairs and her finances.

In 2009, she told the Guardian how her life had been turned upside down, saying: "It was traumatic enough that my husband was missing but suddenly I was a single mother at 24 and I had to find a way to pay the mortgage and the bills.

“The bane of my life has always been the mortgage – it's still in joint names – so I can't change it or move house. We also took out a life insurance policy in case anything bad happened, which I haven't been able to cash in.”

Scotland already has presumption of death legislation, dating back to 1977, which means that if the missing person is thought to have died, any person with an interest can apply for an immediate court declaration of their death, without having to wait the usual seven years before making an application. Northern Ireland also has presumption of death legislation in place.

According to the Missing People charity, every year police forces in the UK receive around 210,000 reports of missing people. Most are resolved quickly but others leave family members to live for years with the pain of not knowing where their loved one is as well as the stress and worry of financial difficulties due to a lost income, the cost of seeking expert advice or having to pay the missing person’s bills or debts.

A report by the charity into the impact on families affected is titled Living in Limbo, reflecting the way they are unable to move on while their loved one remains missing. No-one could fail to have sympathy with their plight and there would be few who would argue against a change in the law to make their lives a little easier.

For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com


]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111122-124345 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:43:45 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111122-124345 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111121-152008
Yet there is growing concern that the libel laws in England and Wales are set to stifle the investigation and publication of controversies within the scientific community, ensuring that the knowledge gained never sees the light of day.

Indeed, even Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, warned of the “chilling effect on scientific and academic debate”; an effect now highlighted by the libel action taken by Professor Mohammed El Naschie against the renowned science journal Nature.

In 2008, when El Naschie retired as editor of the physics journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Nature published an article which alleged that the Egyptian professor had used his position to publish his own work in the journal ahead of that of others in his field.

Furthermore, Nature also suggested that the work El Naschie published was not reviewed by his peers to a sufficient standard. In the High Court case, the journal called an expert witness who had examined some of the professor’s work and found it difficult to understand.

El Naschie responded to these claims by accusing the witness of not being qualified to assess his work, before noting that even the “sloppy” scientist Einstein had made mistakes in his publications.

According to its article, Nature was also unable to verify the affiliations and honorary professorships with international academic institutions claimed by El Naschie.

The outcome of this case, which is expected early next year, is likely to have a significant impact. The peer review process, where papers are assessed by experts in the field before being accepted by a journal, is a fundamental part of maintaining the quality of scientific publications. While Nature’s article may be viewed as a risky and quite personal attack on an individual, they believed it to be a defence of the values that lie at the heart of a community.

For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111121-152008 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:20:08 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111121-152008 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111118-105822
The court ruled yesterday that a woman who sold an “ugly” old vase at auction for £228,000 must pay back the windfall of £190,000 to her ex-partner’s mother.

The “ugly” vase, which Andrea Calland was once offered £375 for by a dealer, turned out to be a Chinese Imperial gilt, bronze and cloisonné archaistic champion vase commissioned by the Chinese emperor or manufactured by craftsmen at the Imperial Palace in Beijing.

It was looted during the second opium war in 1860 and taken from the Summer Palace in Peking, the court heard.

Ms Calland was taken to court by her ex-partner’s mother, Evelyn Galloway, who claimed ownership of the vase, despite it not being in her possession for 18 years.

The vase, which was part of her late father’s collection since 1956, had been sold at Bryne’s auction house in Chester.

Mrs Galloway proved ownership of the vase with the original purchase catalogue and family photos of the vase in the background.

The 74 year-old, who has the vase valued at a few hundred pounds in the 1980’s, did not know the vase had been sold, until she saw it on the front page of her local newspaper in November 2009.

She loaned the vase to her son Steven in 1990 when he and Ms Calland lived in a flat in Ruthin, Denbighshire. They separated in 2001 and it was not until 2008 that Mr Galloway decided to look for the vase while looking after his children, while Ms Calland was away.

He could not find the vase and claims Ms Galland would have known the historical importance of the vase.

After confronting Ms Calland, the Galloways, whose family firm had gone bankrupt with £60,000 debts, decided to sue her.

Ms Calland argued the vase had been abandoned and that after 18 years she was entitled to sell it.

Interestingly enough, Judge Seys Llewellyn QC told the Court he did not believe Ms Calland knew the vase’s true worth.

He also stressed there was no question of dishonesty by Ms Calland, but ruled that Mrs Galloway still retained ownership, 18 years later.


"For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com

"
]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111118-105822 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:58:22 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111118-105822 http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111117-113842 Breastfeeding is one of the most natural things in the world, but it wasn’t until a couple of days ago that the Isle of Man made it an offence to prevent mums from doing it in public.

The Breastfeeding Act, which received the Royal Assent in Tynwald, the island’s parliament, on Tuesday means that failure to comply with the law could lead to compensation claims of up to £2,500.

"I hope this Act of Tynwald will encourage more mothers to breastfeed their child without the stigma of being asked to leave public places such as cafes and restaurants,” said Juan Watterson, the Member of the House of Keys – Tynwald’s lower house – who tabled the bill introducing the legislation.

Mums on the Isle of Man will no doubt be giving three cheers for Mr Watterson but if the UK experience is anything to go by, legislation may not prevent the odd difference of opinion when mothers do what comes naturally.

The Equality Act 2010 specifically clarified that it is unlawful to discriminate against a woman because she is breastfeeding a child but since it was introduced last year, there has been more than one case hitting the headlines involving mums doing just that.

Last month, Debenhams apologised to Emily John, who said she had been “discreetly breastfeeding” her four-week-old son when she was asked by a manager to stop because it was not appropriate in a public place.

Emily’s response was firm. "I told her there was no way I was going to move until my baby had finished and there was a law in place to protect my right to breastfeed," the BBC reported, and she told the manager she wanted to make a written complaint. A second manager then also asked her to stop breastfeeding.

In a statement, Debenhams subsequently said it was “very proud” of being supportive of breastfeeding mums, adding that it was “immediately reminding and reinforcing our breastfeeding stance with our staff”.

As Mr Watterson points out: “Breastfeeding is a normal part of being a mother." To some, it might seem sad that legislation is needed to protect mums’ right to do something so natural. But at least, in the Isle of Man as well as the UK, mothers can say they have the law on their side.

For more information, please visit www.burtondyson.com



]]> http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry111117-113842 Burton & Dyson Solicitors Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:38:42 GMT http://www.burtondyson.com/blog/comments.php?y=11&m=11&entry=entry111117-113842