All Is Not Lost – Riot Compensation

Chris MacCafferty - Business Litigation & Professional Negligence Solicitor

It is fair to say that all civilised people are appalled by the recent trouble which has erupted in our Cities.

It is further troubling to see decent hardworking citizens and business people suffering physical damage to property and financial losses particularly given these difficult economic times we find ourselves in.

I am sure there are people and businesses out there that have suffered financially from the wanton vandalism and looting who unfortunately find they have no insurance to cover their losses.

Please do not despair. All is not lost.

If you find yourself being in this unfortunate position there is a little known act of parliament called the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 which provides that the Police Authorities must pay compensation for damages arising from riots.

Whilst there are differing views as to the performance of the Police Force I must stress that this is not a claim against the Police Force or indeed is to apportion any blame but it is a claim against the Police Authority to compensate those who have suffered loss and damage as a result of the riots.

For those who would be concerned to take such action in these difficult financial times please be aware that the Police Authorities should have insurance in place to cover any such claims for compensation under the act. Effectively therefore if you are without insurance to cover your losses you can seek compensation from the Police Authorities’ insurance company.

Those contemplating a claim are urged to contact Ralli quickly. The Regulations provide such claims must be delivered 14 clear days after the day when stealing, injury or destruction took place. If unsure, it is better to notify the Police Authority of a claim at this point than risk being out of time to claim.

I suspect the Police Authorities and/or their Insurers may seek to claim the recent events do not constitute a riot. Given the numbers involved this argument is unlikely to succeed.

For further information or should require assistance please contact Christopher MacCafferty on 0161 615 0677 or via e-mail to christopher.maccafferty@ralli.co.uk or Michael Forrester 0161 615 0670 or via e-mail to Michael.forrester@ralli.co.uk.

The future’s unknown for Alternative Business Structures

Eimear McCartan - Trainee Solicitor - Corporate

The topical issue of Alternative Business Structures (ABSs) came to the fore once again on the front page of this week’s issue of the Law Society Gazette.

The chief of law firm DLA Piper, Sir Nigel Knowles, has voiced warnings about the potential consequences the upcoming introduction of ABSs will have when introduced on the 6th October this year.

The introduction of ABSs means the entire system of ownership for legal services will undergo a potentially dramatic change as for the first time non-lawyers can invest in and own legal businesses. Up until now, lawyers have been the sole owners of legal businesses. Under the new regime introduced under the Legal Services Act 2007, ownership of legal services will open up to anyone deemed ‘fit and proper’ depending on their share of ownership of the business.

Some are in favour of the new system of ownership, welcoming the fact this will increase competition between existing legal firms and introduce new entrants to the market, thus benefiting the client and driving down prices. Supporters have also highlighted the fact it will open up new doors for solicitors themselves, increasing career options and broadening the scope of the profession.

However, those in opposition have strongly voiced their concerns over the impending introduction of the regime. Critics suggest that introducing non-lawyers into the market could undermine the quality of the entire legal profession. Some major supermarkets, banks and insurance companies have already expressed an interest in participating in the sector, which has led some to dub the introduction of ABSs as ‘Tesco law.’ In addition, some see the change as yet another front to be fought, with law firms already battling a depressed market, legal aid cuts and the Jackson reforms. Many predict that the introduction of ABSs will sound the death knell for small high street firms unable to compete with the giants of the retail sector. Read more »

Sensible Judgement As Expert Witnesses Lose 400-Year-Old Immunity

Chris MacCafferty - Business Litigation & Professional Negligence Solicitor

I recently read in the Law Gazette that expert witnesses have lost their immunity from being sued over matters arising in the course of proceedings, following a landmark ruling.

The full article can be read here.

In my view this is a sensible Judgement. I guess those in favour of maintaining immunity would argue it ensures that Experts are prepared to give evidence in litigation. That said I do not think it will deter good experts from giving evidence. In my experience good experts are fully aware of their paramount duty to the Court and furthermore would not stake their professional reputation at risk for a case.

Whilst this Judgement opens the possibility of bringing professional negligence claims against Expert Witnesses, I agree with the other commentators that this is very unlikely to open a floodgate of claims. There will be claims however for those Experts who dabble and therefore should either not be holding themselves out as an expert or decline the instructions, or are not strong enough to uphold their own professional integrity.

For those good Experts out there I do not think they need to worry. The usual test for professional negligence will still apply and therefore if they are maintaining the standards of the reasonable competent expert in their field they have nothing to fear. That said they may want to check the Professional Indemnity Insurance to ensure they are adequately covered.

Royal Wedding, will thou be copyright infringed?

Zara Niemand - Business Litigation

It’s April 29^th, you have taken three days off and received eleven in return, your feet are up and you’re just about tune into one of the most momentous events of the year, surely you won’t be thinking about the legal issues involved?

CAP Code 

Shortly after Prince William announced the news, CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice) highlighted how it intended to control advertisements referring to the wedding. 

It stated that there should be no suggestion of endorsement by an individual without their consent (6.1). CAP also advised that there should be no mention of members of the Royal Family without their consent (6.2), and use of the Royal Arms or emblems without permission (3.52). 

More recently Prince William has relaxed the rules governing the commercial use of Royal photographs and insignia to commemorate the engagement and marriage, however there are still guidelines that must be followed. Read more »

Is it fair for Legal Expense Insurers to dictate who represents their customers?

Chris MacCafferty - Business Litigation & Professional Negligence Solicitor

Linda Lee of the Law Society commented today that “current legislation provides that where an individual becomes engaged in litigation, they are entitled to a free choice of lawyer”.

She also stated that “it is our belief that insurance companies have wrongly interpreted the law as allowing them to impose restrictions for initial advice and assistance”.

The full article can be read here.

I agree with the comments by Linda Lee about the practises of Legal Expense Insurers. However, to be fair, in my experience this is not across the board. There are certain Insurers who do not seek to stick to the letter of the law in The Insurance Companies (Legal Expense Insurance) Regulations 1990 and they allow their customers to choose their Solicitor regardless of whether the proceedings or the inquiry have commenced.

Now ignoring the point that arguably the pre-action stages are part of the proceedings, it seems to me that the whole purpose of the EU Directive was to allow Insured Clients the freedom to choose their own solicitor. Whilst I appreciate the Insurers are not charities and are seeking to make a profit like any other business, surely it is neither good service nor complying with the duty of utmost good faith to insist on the Client using a Panel Firm when the driving factor is referral fees and/or reduced hourly rates. Read more »

LG v Sony – The Blue-Ray Battle

Michael Forrester- Business Litigation Solicitor

It was widely reported last week that LG obtained a legal injunction against Sony which subsequently banned the importation of PS3 games consoles into Europe.

Thousands of PS3 games consoles were seized by customs officials in The Netherlands, with the legal dispute centering around the ownership of Blu-Ray technology.

Applications for interim injunctions in intellectual property, and particularly patent cases, are not uncommon. Businesses seek this type of relief because a cash award is sometimes inadequate. The number of claims may increase because local courts were given authority to deal with this type of case last year.

The interim injunction in this case granted by the International Court of Justice in The Hague has received considerable publicity because of the parties involved and the large effect that an interim injunction can have on a market place. Read more »

It didn’t feel right but the professionals know what they’re doing, don’t they?

Chris MacCafferty - Professional Negligence Solicitor

Well fortunately most professionals do know what they are doing and will provide you with the service you deserve to receive.

However, some will not. Unfortunately mistakes do happen, it what’s you do about it that counts. As an old colleague and friend of mine used to say ‘it’s why cars have bumpers and professionals have insurance’ – mistakes happen.

With the vast library that is the web people are a lot more knowledgeable about the jobs professionals do. Consequently it was my belief that most people felt more comfortable raising concerns with professionals as they had a good grasp of what there rights were and if not where they could read up on it.

However, I was reading in the Law Society Gazette recently that one of the focussed groups reasons for wanting to ‘name and shame’ solicitors was due to the high esteem held for solicitors and therefore the reluctance and almost fear that Clients have of questioning them.

The article said:

The focus group report said: ‘Solicitors are held in a degree of respect bordering on awe, that is awarded to few professionals other than perhaps doctors.’

It found ‘a strong degree of reluctance to complain’ about solicitors, due to a ‘fear [by consumers] that the solicitor will be able to outsmart them’. Read more »

Solicitor suspended after taking 19 years to settle estate

Chris MacCafferty - Professional Negligence Solicitor

The Daily Mail recently reported that a Solicitor had been suspended after “taking 19 years to settle spinster’s estate”.

Guy Choat was subsequently barred from the profession for three years for the delay in winding up the affairs of Miss Muriel McCarthy.

The full article can be read here.

This is a very unfortunate state of affairs and I would have to echo the comments of the Chairman that this sort of delay is simply unacceptable.

It would appear that Mr Choat was in breach of the profession’s code of conduct of which there were several editions during the 19 year period.

I am only glad that this sort of extreme case is rare. I suspect that the Estate and Beneficiaries have been worn down by the length of time but they should consider the possibility of bringing a claim for professional negligence arising from the delay.

They say the pen is mightier than the sword

David Potts, Partner and Head of Business Litigation

Especially when two leading academic express their views in writing and that leads to the loser in a piece of litigation having to write cheques in relation to both parties’ costs.

In 1991, Mr Robinson and his Wife agreed to buy a house which was being built from PE Jones (Contractors) Limited for £350,000.00 or so.  The purchase of the property, 12 Magnolia Rise, Prestbury, was completed around April 1992.  In September 2004, Mr Robinson called a gas service engineer to service his gas fires.  The gas fires failed the service engineers’ test and both were disconnected for safety reasons.  Mr Robinson wrote to the builder saying that the flues were not built in accordance with good building practice or Building Regulations.  It appeared that the cost of repairs would be substantial (about £35,000.00 or so) because the flues would require reconstruction.  Mr Robinson issued proceedings against the builder in December 2006. Read more »

Sorry? Well maybe just a little bit

Mark Briegal - Partner & Partnership Law Expert

Mark Briegal, Partner at Ralli  gives his views on the issue of the sorry banker…..

Now I have to admit that I used to work in banking and, sadly, I never got a multimillion pound bonus. Like most bank employees I did an interesting job that paid OK and I sometimes got a bonus.  Like most people in banking my bonus might have paid for a weekend away, not a yacht.  I remember buying a nice rug one year!

I was asked to rant about this in a blog, but it’s not that simple, but what ever is!  On the one hand I object to the banks having a business model that seems to allow them to take the gains but allow someone else (the taxpayer) to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.  I also think that they need some humility in relation to what they say – we did bail them out.  I don’t object to people being paid the going rate for the job.  For some (a very small number!) of bankers the figures are astronomical, but I also object to footballers being paid so much whilst nurses, teachers etc. are paid far less.

However, we do need banks and we can’t allow them to fail.  We also need the banks to be successful.  If they are successful, then they will be able to repay us for the money we lent them, with interest.  They will also pay tax and the high paid bankers will not only pay tax, but also spend their money and boost the economy.  If we ban bonuses and the big banks move abroad or the good people who generate the big profits move abroad, that will be detrimental to the economy. Read more »