Docklands Solicitor
Latest legal news from Docklands Solicitors, Kaslers Solicitors LLP.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Payment in Lieu of Notice Clauses
Labels: contracts of employment, employment
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
TUPE Regulations
This area of law can be complex. For help contact Selwan Yousif on 07795 821 803 or 020 7712 1751; or by email sy@kaslers.co.uk
Labels: business law, legal advice, selling businesses
Misrepresentation
A leasing agreement was arranged between C and F under which C paid quarterly rental for the machines. The amount of the cashback payable to C was included in the sum financed.
C cancelled the lease. It did not receive any cashback. C issued proceedings to recover its costs and the promised cashback, claiming that it had been induced to enter into the agreements on the basis of misrepresentations made by P.
The Court held that:
1. It was understood between the parties that C was only prepared to enter into a new lease if it received cashback payments to maintain its target costs.
2. Payment of the cashback was not dependant on C entering into a new lease.
3. P misled C by indicating that the cashback payments would substantially reduce C’s costs
4. P further misled C by suggesting that the cashback payments were a saving to C and would be paid out of P’s profits.
5. The reality was that C in fact borrowed the amount of the cashback and marketing support from F at a substantial rate of interest, thus increasing rather than decreasing its costs.
6. C would not have entered into the agreements if it had been aware of the true situation.
7. The references by P to cashback and marketing support were dishonest and deliberate misrepresentations.
Labels: cashback, finance, lease, Misrepresentation
Monday, 23 August 2010
Employment discrimination
Labels: discrimination, employment, legal advice
Friday, 20 August 2010
Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court
The Claimants (A) applied to the Divisional Court for permission to begin committal proceedings against the defendants B,C and D.
In the pleadings, A had informed B and D that A intended to seek permission to begin committal proceedings. The police had investigated the claim against C but had not prosecuted him. A applied for permission to begin committal proceedings against C two years later.
B submitted that under the Civil Procedure Rules, A should have applied to the County Court Judge dealing with the initial proceedings to refer the matter to the Attorney General and should not have applied directly to the Divisional Court.
The Court held that, whilst CPR 31.23 and 32.14 provided for an application for committal to be made to the Judge dealing with the original proceedings, and that Practice Direction 32.28 contained the words “must refer that allegation to the court dealing with the claim”, a party to County Court proceedings was also entitled to apply to the Divisional Court for a committal order for contempt under Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The Court went on to deal with
1. the issues that the Court would need to consider before granting permission to make an application for committal,
2. the contents of the application, and
3. the effect of delay in making the application.
The Court found that permission to make an application for committal in respect of C should not be granted in view of the delay of two years. However, in respect of B and D, it found that the evidence was strong that they had knowingly made false statements in relation to matters that were material to the main issues of the case and that it was in the public interest that proceedings for contempt should be brought.
Labels: Attorney General, committal, Contempt, divisional court, false statements, statement of truth
Monday, 9 August 2010
Breach of Child Contact Orders
For help and advice contact Satvinder on 0845 371 1884
Labels: legal advice, shared residency
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Child maintenance arrears and Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA)
Labels: child maintenance arrears, IVA, legal advice
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Copyright is no joke!
By allegedly using other comedians jokes Keith Chegwin violated a “gentleman's agreement” amongst the comedy fraternity not to copy each other’s jokes.
A joke can be copyrighted but of course it would have to be original.
If you have original material that you would like to protect from infringement give Luke English of Kaslers Solicitors a call on 01732 897976
Labels: copyright, legal advice
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Archives
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011