Docklands Solicitor

Latest legal news from Docklands Solicitors, Kaslers Solicitors LLP.

Wednesday, 25 August 2010


Payment in Lieu of Notice Clauses

There are a number of key advantages and disadvantages to having a payment in lieu of notice clause (“PILON”) in your contracts of employment, which could benefit employers and employees. To discuss your options contact Selwan Yousif on 07795 821 803 or 020 7712 1751; or by email

Labels: ,

Tuesday, 24 August 2010


TUPE Regulations

When a business is sold or transferred the employees cannot be dismissed as a result of that transfer. Under the TUPE Regulations, there is one exception to this rule, and a dismissal can be justified if the “sole or principal reason for the dismissal is a reason connected with the transfer that is an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce”.

This area of law can be complex. For help contact Selwan Yousif on 07795 821 803 or 020 7712 1751; or by email

Labels: , ,



C, a company, agreed to enter into a lease with P, a provider of photocopiers. P proposed that upon entering into the lease C would receive “cashback” and “marketing support” payments to reduce its overall costs. C entered into a number of supply and service agreements with P over a period of 4 years. The last agreement included an additional provision for a full contract review and for C’s annual costs to be maintained.

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: , , ,

Monday, 23 August 2010


Employment discrimination

An advert saying applicants should be “in the first five years of their career” is indirect age discrimination and even an advert asking for a sales representative with “youthful enthusiasm” is discriminatory although this was against the backdrop of evidence that older applicants, but not younger ones, were asked about motivation, enthusiasm, drive and energy.

Labels: , ,

Friday, 20 August 2010


Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court

The defendants B, C and D each commenced personal injury claims in the County Court against A. During the course of the County Court proceedings B and C had made false statements as to the extent of their injuries. It was alleged that D had made a false statement that he was unable to work and was living on benefits. All three statements were verified by a statement of truth.

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: , , , , ,

Monday, 9 August 2010


Breach of Child Contact Orders

Where a parent, with whom the child lives, continually breaches a contact order, the Court may decide, where appropriate, to switch residence of the child to the other parent.

For help and advice contact Satvinder on 0845 371 1884

Labels: ,

Wednesday, 4 August 2010


Child maintenance arrears and Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA)

When an individual files for IVA, he must include in his written statement any child maintenance arrears. This allows the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, as a creditor, to attend the meeting for approval (or otherwise) of the IVA agreement.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 3 August 2010


Copyright is no joke!

Keith Chegwin has been criticised for posting “his” jokes on Twitter but allegedly “his” jokes were plagiarised from other comedians jokes.

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: ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]


Call Michael Breeze on 07900 195 195 or call 0845 270 2511 to if you need legal advise about any of these issues

Kaslers Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England under LLP no. OC310653; authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under reg no 408936; governed by professional rules set out in the Code of Conduct click here to visit and has its registered office / main trading address at Suite 3, 10 Churchill Square, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent ME19 4YU - tel: +44 (0)845 270 2511; fax: +44 (0)845 270 2513; DX 92863 West Malling.
The LLP Members are Michael D Breeze LL.B (Hons) (SRA reg no 110184) and Simon McCree Scott LL.B (Hons) (SRA reg no 298202).