Business owners could land themselves in hot water by putting employees on garden leave.

Garden leave is routinely used by companies as a way of keeping staff who are leaving a job - through choice or otherwise - away from work during their notice period.

This paid absence is used to ensure staff are not aware of commercially sensitive information which could be shared with a potential new employer.

But practices could face action for sending employees on garden leave if their employment contracts do not include guidance on this.

Mark Briegal, head of Ralli Partnership Law, said this breach of contract could have disastrous results.

He added: "It is commonplace in businesses for departing staff to be put on garden leave but often employers act in haste, without checking out the employment law issues they could be facing.

"Garden leave provisions must be written into partnership or LLP agreements to ensure businesses are protected from future actions.

"Putting a partner or member on garden leave without precautions in place is unlawful exclusion and can result in anything from a damages claim to a winding-up order."

Briegal said extreme conclusions can be avoided if employers check their contracts from the outset.

He added: "Garden leave is only an option if the employment contract makes reference to it. We have already worked on cases where a departing member has contested garden leave because it was not referred to in his contract.

"Employers need to ensure they have relevant and accurately drafted clauses to cover all eventualities.

"In times of economic uncertainty, making sure your partnership agreements are watertight can save a lot of legal and financial heartache in the long term."

Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, must not be "prejudged" by speculation over allegations he faces, ministers have said.

Recent newspaper reports have alleged that he was recalled to prison on suspicion of child pornography offences.

The insatiable obsession of journalists, some of whom have the exuberance of youth but lack the judgement that comes with experience has now turned to identifying the new name and actions of Jon Venables.

We do not know what he is alleged to have done but it is absolutely essential that he has the right to a fair trial, not tainted by the sensationalism which seems to be used nowadays as the primary tool with which to sell newspapers. 

Justice may come at a price and that price may involve journalists maintaining a dignified silence but if they don't, society may reach the stage where no trial at all can take place because fairness cannot be guaranteed. 

One can't help wondering to what extend the media coverage of Commander Ali Dizaei's case may have affected the judgment of those involved in his trial. 

There is a social responsibility of the press which sometimes is lost in the pursuit of short term sensationalism. That social responsibility also applies to the families of the little boy who was the victim of a truly wicked deed.

City law firms are preparing to raise millions of pounds from external investors as the British legal market braces for its own version of Big Bang.

At least 20 firms are planning to raise outside funding under rules that will allow non-lawyers to own a stake in legal practices for the first time, accountants advising the firms told The Times.

Three of these firms are planning to raise a war chest for acquisitions of more than £20 million, either through an initial public offering or from private equity investors.

The new rules, which will come into force next year, are expected to transform the legal sector, as deregulation did financial services in the 1980s.

Jeremy Black, a partner at Deloitte, the Big Four accountant, said: “It's going to change the way firms look at the provision of legal services. Nobody will be untouched by these changes.”

Under the Legal Services Act, firms will be able to adopt a range of business models in place of their traditional partnership structures. In addition to taking outside capital, they will be allowed to go into business with other professionals and to admit non-lawyers as partners.

Firms at all levels of the market are examining their options, but external funding is likely to be embraced most enthusiastically by small and mid-tier firms. The prospect of flotation is particularly attractive to those that carry out a lot of straightforward work, such as personal injury cases, that can be standardised through investment in technology and processes.

Some City firms are looking closely at an IPO. George Bull, a partner at Baker Tilly, the accountant, said that some were aiming to raise funds to acquire other legal practices or to poach staff from competitors.

Others are planning to raise money from private equity or from family funds rather than through a listing. Research by Smith & Williamson, the accounting firm, suggests that as many as 60 UK law firms will seek some form of external funding.

Giles Murphy, head of professional practices at Smith & Williamson, said that many firms were thinly capitalised, as their profits typically are withdrawn each year by partners. Some are attracted to the idea of third-party funding as an alternative to bank financing.

Many partners remain sceptical. They argue that external funding will dilute their partnership culture and force them to give up too much control of their businesses.

Mark Briegal, Partner and Head of Partnership Law comments:

"The first stage of this has allowed law firms to have partners owning up to 25% of the business who are not lawyers.  This has not been widely taken up, although a few senior legal executives and practice managers have now been made partners, which makes sense.

The next stage, to which this article refers, will be more interesting.  The big firms may seek investment to fund growth and takeovers.  Mid sized firms may find it cheaper than loan capital and possibly an interesting influx of non-legal business skills.  The small firms may find it useful for survival.  The same issues apply with any decision to raise capital - loan or equity?  The partners in successful firms may prefer to borrow to fund expansion if they can then keep a greater share of the equity for themselves.  Floatation is a different matter is the existing partners believe they can make a killing on their shares. 

We'll watch this space with interest."

The mastermind behind a £12m 'crash for cash' insurance scam has been ordered by a judge to repay just £1.

Mohammed Patel, 25, lived an affluent lifestyle along with his girlfriend Ettorina Hay after staging a string of car accidents to rip off insurance firms.

He is serving a prison term for his part in the scam – which involved him slamming on his brakes to cause innocent motorists to crash into his car.

But an attempt by the courts to claw back some of the proceeds of Patel's crimes has failed after he was found to have no visible assets.

Judge Bernard Lever ordered him to repay the nominal sum of £1 after hearing Patel had no means of paying the thousands of pounds he earned in the scam.

Patel is known to have enjoyed foreign holidays in Spain, France and Turkey and bought expensive cars while the crimes were being committed.

He bought his unemployed 29-year-old girlfriend Hay a £15,000 Lincoln Navigator, a £15,000 Mercedes Kompressor, paid for her house to be furnished, and gave her £1,000 a month spending money.

However, investigators could find no sign of any material assets stashed by Patel as they tried to recover some of the money he cheated from insurance firms.

Ettorina Hay, of Kirkby Road, Bolton, was ordered to repay £12,953 within three months and warned that she will be jailed for seven months if she does not hand over the money.

Police found her home well equipped with luxury goods, including a plasma TV screen, leather sofas and designer clothes.

Officers took away the Lincoln Navigator and Mercedes cars found outside her house and they have been sold at auction.

Hay was given a 12-month suspended prison sentence in October 2009 and ordered to carry out 300 hours unpaid work in the community, after pleading guilty to money laundering.

Patel, of Nottingham Road, Bolton, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud, seven counts of dangerous driving, and three of driving whilst disqualified. He was jailed for four and a half years.

A court heard he staged hundreds of car accidents, mostly at three locations: the A34 Handforth bypass, a roundabout in Eccles and a junction of the M65 near Burnley.

Patel deliberately braked in front of innocent motorists to cause them to crash into the car he was driving. He picked on lone, elderly female drivers because they were more likely to believe the crash was their fault.

He crashed the cars as a money-making service for other motorists and charged £500 to stage the accidents. They would then submit a claim to their insurance company saying there were up to four passengers in the vehicle who had all suffered whiplash.

Each crash was said to have resulted in an average £17,000 insurance claim.

The scam unravelled when Greater Manchester Police mounted a huge investigation after insurance company workers got suspicious about an "alarming number" of bumps at the Eden Point roundabout near Cheadle.

The scam was at first believed to have been worth £8 million, but later the total involved in the bogus claims was thought to be at least £12 million.

Patel, who admitted staging a sample of 93 collisions, is believed to have earned at least £46,000 for his part in the scam.

Sgt Mark Beales, who led the investigation into Patel, said: "If you consider he was alleged to be receiving between £300 and £500 for each for each collision and the number of collisions he staged, it's not hard to work how he was earning a lot of money from this scam.

"There's no doubt he has been able to spend some of his criminal earnings and enjoyed a lifestyle from those earnings.

“The money that the courts have taken from Patel and Hay is only what's left from their spending spree. If at any time he comes into any money in the future, clearly we will be looking to seize those assets."

Sgt Beales added: "Hay had her suspicions over Patel always having large sums of cash at his disposal, yet she took it regardless. She turned a blind eye to where it came from.

"She no doubt benefited significantly from Patel's criminality and now the justice system is taking money back for victims of crime.

"We will pursue not only criminals like Patel, but also those such as Hay who think there is nothing wrong with spending money that does not lawfully belong to them.

"The message is clear to anyone who thinks they can earn a living from a life of crime. You may think it is glamorous, but it will always catch up with you.

"Seizing cash using the legislation available under the Proceeds of Crime Act is essential if we are going to prevent crime from taking place and disrupt criminal behaviour."

A police source said: "He must have hidden some of this money somewhere and we'll be watching him."

Richard Biggs, Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli comments:

"We have in the past reported in these pages about the “crash for cash” scam.  It involved staged road traffic accidents and has netted criminals huge sums of money.  It was refreshing to finally hear that one of the perpetrators had been convicted, hopefully sending out a message to others.

Unfortunately although the court ordered Mr Patel to re-pay a large sum of money he gained from the proceeds of his crime, they discovered that he has insufficient means to pay.  This may come as a huge surprise to many people given that he has been staging these fake accidents and garnering the proceeds for quite some time.

The Proceeds of Crime Act does give the court some power to seize cash and assets which have been gathered as a result of a crime.  Unfortunately it appears that Mr Patel has disposed of his assets or hidden them in such a way that they cannot be found (and therefore recovered) under that Proceeds of Crime Act.    I suspect that the court however will not let him get off so lightly and will continue to pursue him for some time until the money is discovered."

In view of the huge interest of this case, Ralli is unable to deal with press requests for information on an individual basis, and will provide updates at the following sources: www.ralli.co.uk, (Twitter) @RalliSolicitors and @TellFox.

Stephen Fox, Senior Partner

The Manchester Law Society and Manchester Evening News have joined forces to host the event, which showcases the huge legal talent in the region, and to recognise the range of practices and skills needed to create and sustain a successful firm.

Ralli have been nominated for our continued support for Melignant Melanoma charity Factor 50, which was started by our very own PR & Marketing Manager, Gillian Nuttall.

Gillian comments ahead of tomorrows awards:

"When I heard that Ralli had been short listed for a Manchester Legal Award I was very excited indeed.   When I realised the nomination related to the work we have done for Factor 50 and The Christie, I was beside myself!   Fran Eccles-Bech of the Manchester Law Society said they were "absolutely overwhelmed" by the nominations received so to make it onto a shortlist is a tremendous achievement in itself. Ralli were nominated for awards in several categories but our shortlist success came in the "Team of the Year - Pro Bono/Community Initiative" category.  Competition for the award is fierce as we are up against Eversheds and Hill Dickinson.
 
The awards are sponsored jointly by the Manchester Law Society and the Manchester Evening News and have created a real buzz throughout the city.

This is a situation where we have has punched well above our weight. The positive PR that this will generate not only about town but also with our local Law Society and the Manchester Evening News is wonderful.  
 
Maria Penny was interviewed by the judging panel and gave a great account of the work that we have done for The Christie, not only from a fund raising aspect, but giving back to the community with sponsorship initiatives.   
 
We will be well represented at the event, having a table of 10 Ralli people. Fingers crossed that we bring the award home!"

In a football match if a player injures another player then in principle the player committing the foul could be liable for the injuries, subject to proving that the foul was negligent.  The test of proving negligence would be a high burden on a Claimant and would involve a Court reviewing footage of the incident, if available, witness accounts of the challenge and the referees match report.  There is nothing new even in the context of contacts sports of the particpants owing a duty of care to one another.
 
In the Aaron Ramsey incident because the opposition player was given a straight red card and footage exists of the incident it would be easier to prove liability.  Also because the players involved were professional not only is the player, Shawcross potentially liable but also his employers Stoke City.  It is likely that both the club and player are insured against such liability.  The claim against the employer is based on the principle of vicarious liability.

Dean Ashton who recently announced his retirement from football following an injury he sustained in England squad training as a result of an alleged negligent challenge by Shaun Wright-Phillips is pursuing a case against not only Chelsea (Wright-Phillips employer at the time) but also the FA, (Football Association because it was in an England squad training session).  The principle also applies to semi professional players and clubs by virtue of successful claim brought by a player in a semi professional rugby match following the case of Gravil v Redruth RFC in the Court of Appeal, 2008.  The decision does not extend the principle or duty to amateur sports clubs and associations.
 
Players and Clubs would be well advised to ensure that they have adequate insurance protection against such claims as the damages and legal costs could be significant.  It would also be desirable if the football association and local football associations, particularly  in the amateur game who often arrange blanket insurance covering all clubs in the league would ensure that the insurance covers negligent player to player challenges, as without cover potential Claimants who often have suffered devastating injuries such as Ramsey's are left to pursue only the player who will often have only limited means.  This is unsatisfactory as in many cases the severely injured Claimants will not be a well paid professional footballer who is protected by club and insurance but an amatuer who faces losing substantial earnings, if not their employment, as a result of someone else's fault without any realistic right of redress.

James Reilly

Associate at Ralli- Personal Injury Department

Every defendant convicted in a criminal court would have to pay a levy of £200 under plans being put forward by the Conservatives, The Times has learnt.

Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said that a levy or a fixed fee could raise £80 million a year towards the costs of bringing criminals to court.

Mr Grieve also also indicated that he would favour scrapping the Legal Services Commission, the quango that runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, which costs £125 million to run. "It seems to me that if someone goes through the court process and is convicted, then it is perfectly acceptable to send out the message that the prosecution and defence costs money — and this fixed fee would do that," he said.

The levy would have to be set at a reasonable level, so that those on the lowest incomes were not unable to pay, Mr Grieve told The Times. It would apply even to those on benefits, but would not to every case; minor motoring offences or fixed penalties would be exempt. It would only apply where defendants were granted legal aid, which would mean more serious cases that carry a risk of a serious penalty.

The Legal Services Commission was criticised last week by the Commons Public Accounts Committee as "not fit for purpose". Mr Grieve said: "The evidence suggests it is not producing value for money and so will be part of our quango review."

He is looking at a scheme to reap some of the interest earned on clients' money held by solicitors in their firms' accounts: in France, this brings in about £300 million.

The Conservative plans for the annual £2.1 billion legal aid budget come as concerns are mounting among judges over government plans to curb the costs.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, is concerned about measures to bring in means-testing in the criminal courts to ensure that defendants who can afford to pay towards their legal costs do so.

Meanwhile, the 600-strong Council of Circuit Judges has warned that measures, confirmed by ministers last week, for curbs on legal aid for judicial review challenges are not in the public interest.

Steve Hynes, of the campaigning organisation Legal Action Group, said that the proposal for a fixed fee for all defendants sounded like "a headline-grabber".

"The courts would end up much of the time having to stop the money out of a defendant's benefits, hitting their innocent dependants and creating an administrative nightmare," he said.

Andrew Cowan, Criminal Solicitor at Ralli comments:

"The usual application for prosecution costs in respect of a guilty plea is presently around £85, and where a fine is imposed, a further £15 "victims' surcharge" (which is paid into a fund aimed at helping improve services for victims of crime, not to the particular victim in a case).

The proposed £200 figure therefore appears excessive in the case of a defendant who pleads guilty. When a trial takes place, the prosecution can apply for whatever reasonable costs it has incurred, to reflect the number of hearings and length of trial. Magistrates consider a defendant's financial circumstances and make an appropriate order.

Steve Hynes raises a good point regarding the knock on effect on dependents of defendants who receive benefits. Whilst Mr Grieve believes that a statutory tax on convicted defendants is "perfectly acceptable," the Courts must be allowed some discretion to take account of a defendant's particular circumstances."

Current European rules give women 14 weeks leave fully paid.

In the UK, women get a year off, with the first six weeks on 90% pay, followed by 33 weeks on Statutory Maternity Pay. The rest is unpaid.

The 20-week proposals will now go before the full European Parliament in early March.
There are concerns that employers could discriminate against women of a child-bearing age if the rules are passed.

The UK's Employment Relations Minister Lord Young expressed his doubts about the proposals.
"We already have a generous system which is better than many European Union countries and works well, balancing the needs of businesses and workers," he said.

"A substantial increase in maternity leave paid at full or near-full pay risks undermining this delicate balance at a time when economies across the EU can least afford it."

Business groups also voiced their concerns about the additional cost to companies of extra maternity payments.

The Institute of Directors estimated that the cost to UK businesses of the new rules could be between £1.5bn and £2bn a year.

Dr Adam Marshall, at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "The Pregnant Workers Directive should be about setting minimum EU standards for the health and safety of pregnant workers - not adding new payroll costs for overburdened companies and national social security systems.

"This vote introduces complexity and uncertainty, which are totally unnecessary, as the UK and other EU countries already have well-developed national maternity pay systems."

However, there is no certainty that the proposals will be passed by the European Parliament.
BBC Europe Business reporter Nigel Cassidy said it was "unlikely" that the proposals would be passed, mainly because of the current economic climate.

He pointed out that similar proposals - for 20-weeks maternity leave but with just 6 weeks at full pay - were voted out by the Parliament about 18 months ago.

"Conservatives and liberals felt the proposals would have the reverse effect and discourage employers from taking women on," he said.

Jennifer Smith, Employment Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article:

"The reality of any such change is almost certainly going to prove cumbersome for employers, particularly small businesses, as the extension will add considerably to employers' expenditure on maternity pay.

I am in agreement with the government in that a big rise in paid maternity leave entitlement in Britain, could upset the "delicate balance" struck by the current system. The UK's employment relations minister Lord Young has already expressed his doubts about the proposals, but was keen to stress that the draft legislation is in its very early stages.

Lord Young commented: “We already have a generous system that is better than many European Union countries and works well, balancing the needs of businesses and workers,” he said. “A substantial increase in maternity leave paid at full or near-full pay risks undermining this delicate balance at a time when economies across the EU can least afford it.”

Interestingly, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has also spoken out against the proposed changes.

BCC director of policy Adam Marshall said: “The Pregnant Workers Directive should be about setting minimum EU standards for the health and safety of pregnant workers - not adding new payroll costs for overburdened companies and national social security systems.
"This vote introduces complexity and uncertainty, which are totally unnecessary, as the UK and other EU countries already have well-developed national maternity pay systems.”

Employers should bear in mind however, that there is no certainty that the proposals will be passed by the European Parliament, nevertheless, just the thought of such changes will be enough to cause a headache for many employers."

You will have at least 5 years experience in the following fields of commercial law:-

• Media and the Arts
• Reputation Protection & Image Rights
• Intellectual Property
• Information Technology

You must be capable of attaining a high profile, not only in Manchester but also nationwide, and enjoy the challenge of attracting new business.  You must be able to advise clients succinctly and pro-actively in these dynamic and exciting areas.

Based alongside Ralli's corporate and litigation teams it is envisaged that you will work closely with our marketing team.  In particular, you must have the desire to play a prominent part as Manchester's role as Media City evolves over the coming years.

This is a fantastic opportunity to become an integral part of a growing and successful  practice.

Please see the Job Description for this position.

We offer attractive remuneration, flexible working and other benefits, details of which can be found on our benefits page.

Please apply online, reply with an up to date CV to Lisa Sykes, HR Manager, Ralli, Ralli Courts, West Riverside, Manchester M3 5FT or to lisa.sykes@ralli.co.uk

No agencies please.

But the much criticised press watchdog will escape calls for its abolition or for any form of state regulation of the press.

The PCC needs a radical shake-up to turn it into a body that is proactive, rigorous and is taken seriously by the public, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will say. New powers could extend to halting the printing of a newspaper edition. John Whittingdale, the committee's chairman, says the watchdog should also have the ability to impose large fines.

The commission has come under fire this week for failing to uphold complaints about a Daily Mail article into the death last October of the Boyzone singer Stephen Gately. The column attracted 25,000 complaints from readers who perceived it to be homophobic.

But the PCC said it should be “slow to prevent columnists from expressing their views, however controversial they might be”. It was a point of principle that newspapers could print views that might offend people, it said.

The complaint made to the PCC that the Daily Mail's column on Gately's death was inaccurate, intrusive and discriminatory was not upheld. Gately, 33, died at his holiday home on the island of Majorca.

The PCC said that it could fully understand why Mr Cowles and a record number of complainants were upset, but ruled that Moir's comments had not breached press guidelines.

Moir said that Gately had died a “lonely” death after Mr Cowles went into the bedroom with another man. The PCC ruling also said that Mr Cowles was concerned that a number of “pejorative references” had been made to Gately's sexuality.

In a second move that will please media organisations, the committee is expected to reject calls by Max Mosley, the former Formula One chief, for victims of media exposés to be notified in advance.

There are fears that a requirement for “prior notification” will lead to judges imposing injunctions that would prevent many investigative stories going to print.

A third key recommendation expected in the report, to be published next week, is that businesses with more than ten employees will lose the right to sue for defamation. Concerns about the unequal playing field in defamation cases — where a big corporation is involved — are highlighted by a case in which The Guardian is contesting the £800,000 bill it is being served by Tesco after its coverage of the supermarket's tax affairs.

The Guardian admitted it made “serious errors” in its story but the costs of the legal action dwarfed any damages claimed, proven or agreed, it said. Trafigura, the oil trader, has also threatened proceedings against a number of media companies over coverage concerning the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast. The oil trader denied any liability.

The wideranging report by MPs will cover press standards, privacy, libel and “libel tourism”, “super-injunctions” and costs in defamation cases. The inquiry has already prompted some initiatives, including a libel working party set up by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary.

Mr Straw indicated in January that he intends to cap the costs payable by a losing defendant in libel cases, which can be hugely inflated under no-win, no-fee arrangements and the insurance costs associated with them.

Phil Hitchen, Associate Solicitor at Ralli who specializes in business transactions, funding and intellectual property, comments:

“The Press Complaints Commission (“PCC”)''s decision that in the article did not breach its guidelines and upholding the right to free speech even if the exercise of that right is considered by many to be offensive reopens a discussion on whether self regulation by journalists or regulation by a body considered by some to be less than impartial actually works.

Unless you can prove the article was a libel or otherwise an infringement of your other legal rights, you are left without a remedy. It will interesting to see what changes to the PCC and remedies are suggested. An absolute bar on certain persons bringing legal action should be avoided.

It may be better to promote resolution in the first instance through commercial mediation or alternative dispute resolution means if the primary reason for an absolute bar is only to try and keep enforcement costs of a valid case to a minimum.”

The Jury asked the question: Q: Does the goodwill generated by inexpensive staff perks, such as pastries and fruit, pay dividends?

Mark Briegal, Partner at Ralli answered:

Yes.

Before I became a solicitor I ran a management consulting business and know that recognition is a great motivator. Regular recognition is key and these inexpensive treats are one useful way to provide that. 

There may be an issue if a perk becomes perceived as a right as it then cannot be removed without potentially creating bad will. It's a good idea to alter the perks from time to time to keep them fresh.

The prestigious black tie event will be take place on Thursday 15th April at the Ramada Manchester, rewarding those who have shown marketing excellence, as well as allowing attendees to use the ceremony as a networking tool.

The event will be attended by over 300 marketing professionals, agency creatives, and a judging panel including Sarah Power, Marketing Director at Burger King UK and Jeff Dodds, Marketing and Brand Director at Virgin Media TV.

Ralli has been nominated in two categories, the Marketing Skills Award for Social Media Strategy and the Individual Award of Emerging Marketer of the Year for Ralli's Marketing Executive, Robert Illidge.

Gillian Govan, Chief Marketing Officer for the Scottish Government, and member of the judging panel, said: "I was delighted to see such a range of marketing topics and expertise. There are certainly some gold nuggets of best practice in there that could inspire us all."

This follows on from February's news that Ralli had been nominated for Team of the Year - Pro bono/community initiative at the Manchester Legal Awards.

Ralli would like to thank all those involved and we hope to have another well deserved award in the cabinet come April.

In view of the huge interest of this case, Ralli is unable to deal with press requests for information on an individual basis, and will provide updates at the following sources: www.ralli.co.uk, (Twitter) @RalliSolicitors and @TellFox.

Stephen Fox, Senior Partner

The stationery firm Paperchase is under pressure to withdraw products featuring a design that resembles one created by an artist after her complaints went viral on Twitter today.

The artist, known as Hidden Eloise, accused Paperchase of copying one of her designs on their products, including books and bags.

The company had ignored her claims, she said. But today thousands of Twitter users picked up on the story and within hours it was one of the top trending topics both in the UK and globally.

The design in question features a young dark-haired girl. The artist claims it is a copy of her design, called He says he can hear the Forest whisper.

She urged her followers on Twitter, and fellow artists, to bombard the company with emails. "[I]f you are any bit angry or frustrated with huge ancient vampires sucking the creative juice of indie artists, a simple email sent to them here might save me from having to raise $40,000 for court expenses!" she said.

Paperchase said it had bought the design from a reputable outside agency in good faith, and was trying to get to the bottom of the issue, adding that it was "deeply concerned" about the allegations.

In a statement on the company's website, it said: "We understand that many of you are visiting us today after hearing about the origin of one of our designs. We would like to make it clear that Paperchase bought the design in question in good faith from a reputable design studio. Paperchase is deeply concerned by the allegations and we will be looking into the matter further." A spokesman for the company said it could not confirm the name of the company involved.

Print by Hidden Eloise and a bag in Paperchase bearing a similar design Photograph: Hidden Eloise

On her website the artist said that since she had called the company they had continued to place items with her design on sale. "I'm sure Paperchase think that there is nothing that can make them stop," she said.

In an email she said she had created the artwork in around March 2008 and had sold it in on the craft website Etsy since then.

A fellow seller had contacted her after noticing the girl figure on a Paperchase bag, she said. She contacted Paperchase in November 2009 and the company denied there was any plagiarism, and stated that the company it had bought the design from also denied infringement, she said.

"Paperchase said that the items in question were in short run and that they wouldn't be renewed after they run out," she said. But she later saw that they had been freshly listed, she said.

She sought legal advice but found the prices prohibitive. "It was just too expensive to even start talking with any lawyers and the legal fees could break anyone with non-corporate pockets," she said.

Despite fears about being sued for libel she decided to go public with her claim. "It was a difficult night yesterday but I am glad I took the decision to take a firm stand and speak out for something that is seen as self-evidently wrong by so many people," she said.

"The tweeter eruption that happened this morning is the warmest, kindest and most gentle affirmation that individual people care about each other and intuitively know what is right and what is wrong. And no court of law can take that away from me."

Paperchase later confirmed that it had bought the design in October 2008, from a well-known London design studio, adding that it takes "all reasonable precautions" to check that designs are from reputable sources.

"Above all, we would like to apologise to any customers upset or angered by this allegation against us," said the statement.

"The illustrator who is making the allegation made us aware of her concerns in November 2009 and we duly responded to her in early December, since when we had heard nothing ... until today. Back in November 2009, we spoke at length to the design studio in question and they categorically denied any plagiarism."

It added: "It is worrying that such an allegation can create such reaction and again, Paperchase apologises for any ill-feeling caused."

The company joined Twitter today, under the name @FromPaperchase, to address concerns directly to the online community, tweeting: #Paperchase would like to address your concerns about the origin of one of our purchased designs." It included a link to its statement on the website.

Phil Hitchen, Associate at Ralli who specializes in business transactions, funding and intellectual property, comments:

"The position under UK law is that if the artistic work was an original creation of "Hidden Elouise" and it was not created by her in an employment capacity or on the basis that the rights in the artistic work are to belong (or be transferred to) a third party then it is a matter for her to prove she owns the copyright and/or has moral rights.

If she can then it may be possible to agree a licence with the third party alleged to have infringed (including any "back dating" for the purposes of royalties). Failing that she would have to take action based on breach of copyright or moral rights to which as artist she is entitled.

She would need an injunction or equivalent court order to stop further sales etc and such remedies are usually at the court's discretion."

Goojje has a Google-style logo and a homepage that is laid out just like the Western original's.

A Google spokeswoman said the company has officially asked Goojje to stop copying its trademark-protected logo.

The search engine's name is a play on words: "jje" sounds like the Chinese word "older sister", while "gle" is pronounced like the Chinese word for "older brother."

It was established in January at the same time as Google threatened to pull out of China over censorship and hacking concerns.

Goojje provides search and social networking services, but its results are censored to comply with Chinese law.

China is also home to a replica version of YouTube and analysts say they are expecting that if any other major site gets copied, it will likely be the hugely successful Facebook.

Phil Hitchen, Associate at Ralli who specializes in business transactions, funding and intellectual property, comments:

"Google's main revenue stream continues to flow from use of its search engine and related advertising and so it is in Google's interests to enforce its legal rights for intellectual property infringement (copyright and registered marks) and passing off. The difficulty Google faces is the same question that all owners of intellectual property face and that is who to sue and the cost, time and effort in doing so. Certainly it has the funds for legal action."

Sources at Sky Sports have revealed that the HMRC will push for a winding-up order for Pompey, signalling the death knell for the club.

It owes £7.5m to the taxman and a winding-up order will take the club into liquidation, effectively the end of the line for any business.

Sources said last minute negotiations had broken down over a deal to pay a portion of the money back and reschedule further debt. The Barclays Premier League's bottom club is expected to ask for an extra 28 days to put together their case.

It is a traditional English club and in these circumstances I am doing everything to keep this club alive, but I cannot do it alone.

But if the club fails in its bid for a stay of execution, Pompey could go into liquidation.

The case will be heard this afternoon.

Manager Avram Grant made an impassioned plea to the courts after last night's last-gasp 1-1 draw against Sunderland.

He said: "Football is not one plus one is two, it is a passionate game.

"It is not a clear business where there are no feelings - there are feelings of fans, players and my own. There are problems, but football is more than this."

He added: "This club needs to stay alive. That is more important that football. It is 112 years old.

"It is a traditional English club and in these circumstances I am doing everything to keep this club alive, but I cannot do it alone."

Grant added: "I don't know about the financial situation but we are trying to fight and keep it."

If Portsmouth, who won the FA Cup in 2008, go into liquidation it will be the first time that a Premier League club has done so.

The court would not have the power to put the club into administration, which would have allowed the club to continue trading and protect it from its creditors. Instead, what we are talking about is the wholesale destruction of Portsmouth as a football club.

Sky's Business Correspondent Joel Hills said: "In theory the difference between adminsitration and liquidation is the difference between intensive care and burial.

"Liquidation would mean the immediate end to Portsmouth's season, the death of the club (formed in 1898) and the immediate termination of the contracts of all players and staff."

Sky's Enda Brady, at the High Court, said: "Portsmouth may be hoping for some last minute adjournment, some stay of execution for them to get their house in order."

Portsmouth owner Balram Chainrai has said that more than 600 jobs could be lost if the club goes into liquidation.

Chainrai is the club's fourth owner this year, following Alaxandre Gaydamak, Sulaiman Al Fahim and Ali Al Faraj.

In the same court, after Portsmouth, will be League One club Southend United and Championship outfit Cardiff City, also both face winding-up petitions.

It is the second time Cardiff, who lost to Pompey in the 2008 FA Cup final, have faced a winding-up order over an unpaid debt to the taxman.

The Bluebirds have been in discussions with HMRC over a reported £2.7m tax bill in an effort to reach an agreement before the court action.

Mark Briegal, Partner at Ralli comments:

"This is a sad state of affairs. In many ways, football clubs do not follow the usual rules of business.  In most markets if a competitor offers a better product or cheaper prices the consumer will switch. But I can't imagine a Manchester United supporter buying a Manchester City season ticket next year just because it was cheaper and the stadium newer.  Sentiment and loyalty affect the clubs.  However they are businesses and must act like businesses.  And businesses have to pay their creditors, including the tax man.  Just because the fans are loyal doesn't mean that the government will allow the clubs to get away with not paying tax.

I would imagine that HMRC has looked at the numbers and decided they will get more cash out of a liquidation than out of an administration and more quickly.  Creditors tend to prefer administration because, if it is successful, they will get back more of their money.  HMRC doesn't want to be the fifth owner in a year.  The underlying problem may be that small clubs at the bottom of the Premiership just can't afford to belong to a very expensive club.  The clubs needs money and it needs it fast.  Perhaps the fans could have a whip round?"

The move was the first step towards finally dismissing the 47-year-old senior officer from the London force.

Investigators at the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) pulled together a file summarising their findings against Dizaei.The paperwork will now be considered by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), the force's board of governors.

They can fast-track a hearing if they believe it is in the public interest to oust Dizaei without delay. But strict guidelines on how misconduct procedures are held mean it is likely to take at least a month to reach a conclusion.

Dizaei began a four-year jail sentence in Wandsworth Prison after a jury convicted him of corruption. Southwark Crown Court heard he threatened, assaulted, falsely arrested and attempted to frame a young Iraqi businessman who stood up to his bullying. After the guilty verdicts, Dizaei's barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, admitted his career was "at an end".

An IPCC spokeswoman said: "The IPCC has passed a file to the MPA regarding the misconduct process in the case of Commander Ali Dizaei following yesterday's guilty verdict at Southwark Crown Court."

Members of the National Black Police Association (NBPA), of which Dizaei was once president, said he may appeal the guilty verdicts. A source close to his legal team said he was "considering a number of options" and a decision could be made within days.

A spokesman for Ralli solicitors said: "We are disappointed with the outcome of this case and are currently considering our position regarding an appeal against the decision and sentence."

Avatar has been an enormous success. The film has broken nearly all records at the box-office, and together with The Hurt Locker it was last night's big winner raking in nine Academy Award nominations.

James Cameron and the rest of the Avatar crew probably cracked open a few bottles of Champagne to celebrate, but today they will wake up with a serious hangover.

Only a few days after the nominations were announced, a DVD screener of Avatar (2D) appeared online. Before today, only a lower quality Telesync copy of the film has been available on BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks.

Ironically, the DVD screener that is now widely available online most likely leaked through one of the Academy Awards voters.

There is no doubt that Avatar will also score big in the list of most downloaded movies this year. The Telesync copy of the film that has been available for over a month was already downloaded by more than two million people.

It is expected that the DVD leak will easily double or even triple these figures. Avatar has been among the most searched for keywords on nearly every torrent site for more than a month already.

Twentieth Century Fox has been extra careful with sending out the DVD-screener of Avatar, as more Academy members received it mid January, just a few days before they had to vote. Although this did delay the leak, it couldn't be prevented.

Phil Hitchen, Associate at Ralli who specializes in business transactions, funding and intellectual property, comments:

"If the DVD-screener will affect the box-office revenues is up for debate. The film has already grossed more than $2 billion worldwide, which is an absolute record despite the relatively high piracy rate. In fact, high piracy numbers are often an indicator of success at the box-office and vice versa.

Prior to general release and at each stage of the distribution process it is often key to a successful film in revenue terms to control the process and avoid leaks. Regrettably with hits such as “X Men Origins: Wolverine” and “Avatar” there is always that possibility even with strict controls in place since there are many eager to find out as much as they can and those willing to feed that interest.

Finding an initial leak may be relatively straight forward but controlling it thereafter may be difficult and costly. The commercial issue is always how badly is the revenue stream likely to be affected and does the film company want to sue the leak and any known recipients for breach of contract and/or copyright infringement. If the leak in “Avatar”s case relates to content made available for the voting process there may be a commercial reason for being unwilling to take legal action.”

It is one of the most recognisable flute riffs in one of Australia's most famous songs, but it seems the introductory hook to Men at Work's classic hit Down Under was not original.

It was stolen from another famous Australian song – the children's nursery rhyme Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree, penned by a Melbourne school teacher, Marion Sinclair, for a Girl Guide competition in the 1930s.

A judge in Sydney has found that the famous riff from the de facto Australian anthem was unmistakably the same as the children's tune, ending a seven-month copyright battle between the pub classic and the schoolyard favourite.

"I have come to the view that the flute riff in Down Under in the 1979 recording and 1981 recording infringes on the copyright of Kookaburra because it replicates in material form a substantial part of Ms Sinclair's 1935 work," Justice Peter Jacobson told the federal court today.

Marion Sinclair died in 1988, an the Kookaburra publishing rights are held by Larrikin. Adam Simpson, the company's lawyer, said that EMI and the Down Under songwriters may be forced to hand over as much as 60 per cent of their earnings from the international hit record over the past six years, which could cost the songwriters millions of dollars in royalties.

"It's a big win for the underdog," Mr Simpson said outside the court today.

When asked how much Larrikin would be looking for in compensation, he replied: "Obviously, the more the better but it depends — anything from what we've claimed, which is between 40 and 60, and what they've suggested which is considerably less."

The two parties will meet again on February 25 to discuss the findings and begin discussions about costs.

Men at Work have sold more than 30 million albums worldwide, thanks in part to the song Down Under, which was, released in 1981 and went on to become a chart-topping hit in Australia, Britain and the US. It helped to garner Men at Work a Grammy award in 1983 for best new artist and is consistently named as one of the best Australian songs of all time because of its references to iconic Australian things such as a Vegemite sandwich, combie vans and beer and, of course, "chunder".

Last October the case heard that the Men at Work flautist Greg Ham conceded he may have "subconsciously referenced" the melody from the Kookaburra song while he was researching "quintessentially Australian icons".

While the similarities had been long rumoured about among music aficionados, the issue came to national prominence when it was used as the subject of a question on the Australian music quiz show Spicks and Specks (which has a similar format to Britain's Never Mind the Buzzcocks).

Under the new system:

• The statement will list common changes which could be made to an employee's work environment or job role to help facilitate a return to work. Where a doctor considers another option is more appropriate, he or she will have the opportunity to state this in the comments box.
• There will no longer be 'a fit for work' option as doctors were felt not to have the appropriate knowledge about individuals' roles and the risks involved to be able to assess this.
• The 'may be fit for some work' option will be replaced with 'you may be fit for work taking account of the following advice'. This acknowledges that it is not the doctor, but the employer, in consultation with their employee, who is best placed to make the decision as to whether they can accommodate any changes to facilitate a return to work.
• The maximum duration a medical statement can be issued for will be reduced from six to three months during the first six months of a health condition.
• If an employer is not able to facilitate a change or an adjustment, a revised statement is not necessary; the existing statement is evidence that an individual has a health condition preventing him or her carrying out the current role.
• The Government intends that specific guidance for individuals, employers and healthcare professionals will be available shortly. There will also be a communications campaign to ensure awareness of the changes.

A Government evaluation of the new medical statement will be published in 2012/13. This will commission new qualitative and quantitative research, supplemented by sickness absence data and other quantitative survey data covering the areas of health and work from 12 months after implementation. The evaluation will consider the impact on different regions and on different illnesses and disabilities where possible, as well as impact by gender, age and race.

The alleged affair between the England football captain and a team-mate's ex-girlfriend puts Britain's privacy laws on the spot.

As is allegedly his habit, John Terry scored away from home last night. This time he was helping Chelsea retain their place at the top of football's Premier League with a late goal in a 2-1 win at Burnley.

Despite his goal, it was an uncomfortable game for Terry, the captain of both Chelsea and England. He was barracked from the moment his name was read out from the teamsheet to the final whistle.

During the warm-up, a stadium announcer had cheekily played Let's Stick Together by Bryan Ferry. Later the home fans sang: “Same old Terry, always cheating.”

Until yesterday Terry's alleged affair with Vanessa Perroncel, a French underwear model — and, more importantly, the former girlfriend of fellow England player Wayne Bridge — was just like any other episode of Footballers' Wives, the television soap opera that centred on the sexual liaisons of players at the fictional Earls Park club. It was saucy tittle-tattle — and particularly embarrassing for somebody named Dad of the Year for 2009 — but hardly earth-shattering.

Nine days ago Terry's lawyers, Schillings, applied for a so-called super-injunction to block reporting of the alleged affair. These draconian court orders not only halt the publication of the story in question but also forbid any reference that the injunction exists. Critics regard them as a significant block to freedom of speech.

Sir Michael Tugendhat, who has helped develop privacy laws, granted Terry's lawyers a temporary injunction. What they did not know was that Tugendhat is a fan of Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII's courtier, whom he reveres for his association with freedom of expression.

On Friday Tugendhat reviewed the case and, realising that anyone with a computer could find even more sordid allegations about the affair just a mouse click away, lifted the injunction. He said it was likely that the nub of Terry's complaint was the protection of his financial arrangements and not of any other aspect of his private life.

He added: “Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise — within the limits of the law — the conduct of other members of society as being socially harmful, or wrong.”

In a judgment welcomed by freedom-of-speech campaigners, he criticised “routine” requests for super-injunctions.

The ruling left Terry, 29, reeling and cast doubts over his future as England captain. Fans will be concerned about the effect the alleged affair will have on team spirit ahead of this summer's World Cup.

Terry will also be wary that sponsorships worth millions of pounds a year may be cancelled. More importantly, he will be concerned about his relationship with his wife, Toni, the mother of their three-year-old twins, Georgie John and Summer Rose.

In Tudor times it was the romantic entanglements of princes that led to changes in the law. More lost his head for opposing the king's divorce and marriage to Anne Boleyn. Now it is the no less complicated assignations of professional footballers and other celebrities that are shaping privacy law.

THE romance is supposed to have started four months ago. Terry and Bridge were practically neighbours on a luxury estate in Oxshott, Surrey, until Bridge was transferred from Chelsea to Manchester City last January. Bridge and Perroncel had a son born a few months after Terry's twins and the two families went on holiday together.

Terry, who picked up his Dad of the Year award in a Daddies sauce survey last year, could have followed Bridge to City, lured by the offer of a £200,000-a-week pay packet, but decided to stay behind.

So did Perroncel, unwilling perhaps to give up West End modelling shoots and the Wag haunts of Knightsbridge and South Kensington. She and Bridge officially separated in December but are believed to have called it a day last summer.

Yesterday the parties involved were batting away reporters' inquiries. Bridge said his primary concern was the welfare of his son and that he would make no further comment. The publicity agent Max Clifford said he had spoken to Perroncel and she was “very, very upset”. Terry's wife is said to have telephoned her on Friday demanding to know every detail of the affair but the model insisted they were “just good friends”. Terry did not answer questions when leaving Chelsea's team hotel.

It is the latest in a series of embarrassments for Terry. He was once caught romping with another girl in Bridge's house. He is rumoured to have a bad gambling habit and was exposed last year as receiving payments of £10,000 for giving private tours of Chelsea's Surrey training ground. His mother and mother-in-law were cautioned last year for shoplifting and his father was exposed in November for allegedly offering cocaine to a reporter.

Many had questioned his suitability to be England captain and now Fabio Capello, the manager, has to decide whether to retain Terry in the role for the World Cup in South Africa. He must also ponder whether to take Bridge as cover for Ashley Cole, the first choice as England left back and another Chelsea star who has been in the doghouse for an alleged extramarital affair.

To make matters even worse, football insiders believe yet another England player may have tipped off Bridge about the relationship.

George Sik, a psychologist who works with footballers and wrote the book In Ma Head, Son with Pat Nevin, a former Chelsea player, said: “This is the not the kind of thing Bobby Moore would do. There is an unspoken code of loyalty in football, things you don't do, such as scoring with a team-mate's wife or girlfriend. This is a knife at the heart of the England team.”

Martin Keown, the former England defender, said yesterday: “Terry is a big, big player, but these indiscretions really need to be dealt with by Capello. He is a great disciplinarian and I think this is a chance for him to show that.”

Terry's hopes of staying England captain are reasonable, however, if only because the other candidates are hardly saints themselves. Last night he was 4-9 to keep the armband with the bookmaker Ladbrokes. Steven Gerrard, who was last year cleared of assault and affray in a bar, was his closest challenger at 7-2.

The Football Association refused to comment. Chelsea said it was backing its captain and giving him and his family “all the support they need in dealing with it”.

Terry is also likely to keep his sponsorship deals worth more than £4m with companies such as Nationwide, Umbro and Samsung. Nationwide, the building society which has sponsored England for 12 years, said: “This is a private matter and not a matter for us.”

Clifford was sanguine about Terry's deals. “This is not going to cause any problems with sponsors,” he said. “Can you imagine Samsung cancelling his contract and all the Chelsea fans stopping buying their phones?”

However, when Tiger Woods was exposed as a serial adulterer last year his sponsors gradually backed away from him as the revelations piled up.

TERRY'S prowess on the pitch as a defender is based on his mistakes being few and not catastrophic. However, legal experts say that he made four crucial errors in his legal battle.

First, his lawyers applied for the injunction as “LNS versus persons unknown”. It did not name Terry and using the phrase “persons unknown” meant that newspapers investigating the story were not informed and were unable to challenge the case in court. Tugendhat saw this as unfair.

Second, Terry's lawyers drew attention to the potential loss of future earnings from his sponsors, rather than the effect on his wife and children. If anything was going to dissuade Tugendhat, a Catholic father of four, from the merits of his case it was that.

Third, Terry did not turn up in court to give evidence but relied on a witness statement from two business associates, thought to be his agents.

Finally, Terry asked these two to visit Perroncel, 33, the day before the first hearing to sign a confidentiality agreement to ensure her silence. In the contract, bizarrely signed for a nominal fee of £1, she said: “As a result of my dealings with you [Terry] there has been speculation about a relationship with you. Whilst I do not make any admission as to the truth or otherwise of such speculation, I do not want such information to be disclosed.”

What the lifting of the injunction is likely to do, legal experts predict, is stop the goal rush of super-injunction applications being used to protect the rich and famous.

This will have knock-on effects. If the “super” part of the injunction can be lifted, revealing the fact that someone has sought an injunction, it exposes the person to gossip on the internet and elsewhere.

Mark Stephens, the media lawyer, said: “As a result of a failed attempt to gag the world the lawyers have made a drama out of a crisis. It is an object lesson. Effectively the only person John Terry didn't want to know was his wife. Now everybody knows and she has been cheated on publicly.”

Dan Tench, a partner in litigation at the lawyers Olswang, said: “This appears to be a significant retrenchment in the development of the law of privacy in this country. Procedurally, the judge set a high bar for John Terry's lawyers which is new and which they weren't able to meet. The media have been left with an old-fashioned 1970s sex scandal.”

The privacy law is developing fast and it will be months before the true fallout of the Terry affair is known. But for a few days at least the footballing hero of the tabloids is not Roy of the Rovers but Tugendhat of the Inner Temple.

THE finalists in the first ever Manchester Legal Awards can be revealed today.

The contest, launched by Manchester Law Society and the Manchester Evening News, will culminate in an awards dinner at the Midland Hotel on Thursday, March 4.

Prizes will be awarded in 17 categories, ranging from trainee of the year to partner of the year for individuals, small, medium and large law firm of the year and accolades for teams specialising in areas ranging from private client, property and litigation to crime, personal injury, employment and corporate and commercial.

There will also be an award for outstanding achievement for the lawyer adjudged to have made an unrivalled impact on the sector in the region.

The shortlist for that category comprises JMW managing partner Bill Jones, who formed the firm in 1978 with four people and has spearheaded its growth into an outfit with 29 partners and 160 staff, Eversheds' Edward Pysden, who is celebrating 40 years in the profession and is currently a senior corporate partner acting for many major regional companies, and Rodger Pannone, who built his eponymous firm into a major national player and is a former president of the Law Society.

Addleshaw Goddard, Eversheds and Russell Jones & Walker are the finalists for large law firm of the year, while George Davies, Leech & Co and Turner Parkinson will battle it out for the medium law firm of the year award.

Just Costs Solicitors, McCool Patterson Hemsi & Co, Rowlinsons and Stripes are the finalists for the small firm of the year prize.

In the running for partner of the year are Irwin Mitchell's Grahame Codd, Hill Dickinson's Michael Morrison and Andrew Morton, of Pannone.

Firms which have made the shortlist in the team of the year categories include Hammonds, Goodman Harvey, Burton Copeland, DLA Piper, Stephensons, Lewis Hymanson Small, Beachcroft, Mills & Reeve, Ralli and John Pickering & Partners.

Fran Eccles-Bech, executive director at the Manchester Law Society, said: “We've been blown away by the fantastic reaction to the awards from the region's legal profession, and genuinely stunned by the number and quality of entries we received.

“The dinner is a sell out. This event was long overdue and I am utterly confident it will now become an annual event.”

Team of the Year - Pro bono/community initiative

Eversheds
Hill Dickinson
Ralli

Regulations giving new fathers the right to transfer parental leave from their partner could be a nightmare for smaller employers to administer, lawyers have warned.

Yesterday the government unveiled plans under which fathers could be eligible for up to six months' paternity leave, three of them paid, if their partner returns to work and they transfer over the second half of their leave.

The changes are due to come into force in 2011, and the government have predicted that only 6 percent of fathers will take up the option of extra leave. But Darren Sherborne, head of employment at Rickerbys, told PM that the regulations could be problematic to administer.

“The changes will make planning resources very difficult in smaller- and medium-sized firms,” said Sherborne. “Such firms do not in my experience accept the government's reassurances that few fathers will take up the right. The question must be asked that if so few will avail themselves of the right, what is the point in introducing it?”

Sherborne said that while truly interchangeable leave could be seen as a step towards equality, it was questionable whether it was a step that society or employers were ready for.

“Small employers will be feeling beleaguered and besieged by yet more changes and the inevitable difficulty in resourcing yet more of the workforce with a right not to attend work,” he concluded.

His view was echoed by Jennifer Smith, Employment Solicitor at Manchester law firm Ralli. She said: “It is unclear exactly how employers will administer the new rules, particularly how communication between the mother's employer and the father's employer will work in practice. Employers will need to start planning for the changes now, in order to minimise the impact that these new proposals will have on their businesses. The reality is almost certainly going to prove cumbersome for employers, particularly small businesses, as it likely to involve a greater administrative burden.”

John Terry, the England captain, is bracing himself for damaging revelations about his private life after a High Court judge overturned a controversial superinjunction sought by the footballer.

Lawyers for Mr Terry had successfully applied for a High Court injunction last Friday having learnt that a Sunday newspaper planned publish revelations about the Chelsea captain.

The so-called superinjunction, which prevents even the existence of the injunction from being known, has previously been used by the oil trading company Trafigura to stop newspapers reporting a parliamentary question about its involvement in the dumping of toxic materials in the Ivory Coast.

At the High Court today Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that the injunction was not proportionate to the damage that would be caused to the private lives of the footballer and other parties if the revelations were published.

Mr Justice Tugendhat added that the other person concerned was also a “famous person” but not in the world of sport.

The allegations are set to raise fresh questions about Mr Terry's suitability to captain England at the forthcoming World Cup Finals.

Last month he was given a stern reminder of his responsibilities as captain from a senior member of England's coaching team. It followed allegations, denied by the player, that he was paid £10,000 for offering a secret tour of Chelsea's training ground.

In recent months he has endured a spate of humiliating headlines about his family members. His father Ted was filmed allegedly arranging to pass a Class A drug to an undercover reporter, while his mother, Sue, and Sue Poole, his mother-in-law, were cautioned for shoplifting after being caught with £800 worth of clothes and groceries from Tesco and Marks & Spencer.

Fathers will be able to take up to six months' paternity leave while their child's mother returns to work, under government proposals due to be announced later today.

Ministers are expected to say that fathers will have a legal right to take the place of the mother at home for the last three months of her nine-month maternity leave.

During that time, they would be eligible for statutory government pay of £123 a week. They would then be allowed to take an additional unpaid three months off, which would effectively allow couples to have a total of 12 months' parental leave.

The measure would allow mothers who earn more than their partners to return to work earlier, and is a victory for Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who has championed extra parental leave and flexible working rights for parents.

Last year, the government postponed plans to extend paid maternity leave to 12 months and allow parents to split this allowance between them, citing the economic climate and the costs and bureaucracy it would cause employers.

Ministers estimate that between 4% and 8% of those eligible for the new leave will take it, with only 1% of small businesses expected to be affected, according to reports in the Daily Telegraph.

Jennifer Smith, Employment Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article:

"Many families are currently experiencing problems in balancing work and care of children.  The new proposals have been hailed by many as a positive step which will give a greater degree of flexibility to reflect the fact that it may be more beneficial for the family for the mother to return to work, rather than the father.

The new proposals will inevitably mean that some fathers will be absent from the workplace for longer, however, some women are likely to return to work quicker as they take advantage of the new proposals.

Advice for employers

It is unclear exactly how employers will administer the new rules, particularly how communication between the mother's employer and the father's employer will work in practice. In terms of cost, the impact on employers is unknown, however, the Government estimates that take up of the new right by fathers will be less than 6%.

Employers will need to start planning for the changes now, in order to minimise the impact that these new proposals will have on their businesses.  The reality of this change is almost certainly going to prove cumbersome for employers, particularly small businesses, as it likely to involve a greater administrative burden."

Businessman Munir Hussain, of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, saw his 30-month stretch reduced to a two-year suspended sentence by the Court of Appeal.

Hussain's 35-year-old brother Tokeer - who was also jailed for the attack - had his 39-month jail term reduced to two years.

Following the ruling at London's High Court, Munir Hussain's son Awais said his family was "extremely grateful".

He described the decision to free his father as "a great relief", but added that his uncle, Tokeer, should also have been released.

In September 2008, Munir Hussain and his wife and children returned from their local mosque during Ramadan to find intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.

He feared for their lives as their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room.

The 53-year-old businessman made his escape after throwing a coffee table and enlisted Tokeer to help chase the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, bringing one of them to the ground.

What followed was described at Reading Crown Court as self-defence which went too far.

The injuries sustained left intruder Walid Salem with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

Salem's injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment. He was given a two-year supervision order.

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal rejected a bid from Munir Hussain to appeal his conviction.

But Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, and two other judges in London, said they would respond to a "call for mercy" from barristers representing the brothers, agreeing there was "ample justification" to free Munir Hussain and reduce Tokeer's sentence.

He described the case as one of "true exceptionality", remarking that while Munir's sentence of two years was in itself "merciful", a suspension would be awarded.

Neither man was present in court for the Court of Appeal ruling.

Stuart Page, Associate at Ralli comments on the article:

"This is probably one of the longest running debates in the field Criminal Law, you must always remember if someone is charged with an offence of Assault or even Murder of an intruder at their home they still have an opportunity to be tried by a group of their peers (ie a jury).

The jury holds the power based upon the facts and evidence it hears to acquit or convict someone.

It is not clear from the report but if Mr. Hussain had gone to trial in this case his actions would have been assessed by a jury and if the jury had found them to be more than reasonable force they would have found him guilty, however if they had found the force to be reasonable they would have found him Not Guilty.

Obviously from the many comments made by the public there is a great deal of support for Mr. Hussain therefore if he had pursued a trial there would likely have been at least 3 or 4 who concurred with this view."

Sky's City editor Mark Kleinman has revealed that an improved offer by Kraft is expected to be formally announced after months of hostile negotiations.

The companies have now been talking about a £11.7bn takeover that would effectively end the iconic British firm's independence.

"My understanding is that it is likely to be an £8.40 per Cadbury share, plus 10p share dividend, which would value Cadbury at nearly £12bn," Kleinman said.

"That's felt to be the minimum that many Cadbury shareholders would sell out for.

"If the deal does happen... it will spell an end to the independence and British ownership of Cadbury, one of Britain's iconic companies."

Sky's Midlands correspondent David Crabtree, reporting from Cadbury's factory in Birmingham, said: "There has been quite a big campaign here to fight off this bid. Workers fear it will mean job josses.

"It's really all about heritage. One worker told me he worries that the whole Bournville factory would close eventually, ending a 186-year history of chocolate making."

Felicity Loudon, the great granddaughter of Cadbury's founder John Cadbury, told Sky News: "I'm angry. Really angry. I don't think anybody is thinking of what will happen to the workers.

"Kraft will have to asset strip to afford this. They will cut corners, they will sell out. To me they are a plastic cheese company and this is the jewel in the crown."

Kraft had previously increased the cash portion of its offer without raising the overall bid, which the Cadbury board described as "derisory".

The Dairylea-to-Oreos giant is under pressure not to over-pay from its biggest shareholder, billionaire Warren Buffett.

Mark Briegal, Partner at Ralli comments on the article:

"This looks like it will go ahead now that Kraft has increased its offer.  It is understandable that people feel upset about the potential loss of the heritage.  (If you've not been, I highly recommend a trip to Cadbury World in Bournville - you could even take your children!).  However, we live in a free market economy and if you float your shares on the stock market to raise money you can't then limit who buys them.  If the price is good enough investors will sell.

I understand the fears of the factory workers in Birmingham about their jobs and the fears of loyal consumers who worry whether their favourite chocolate will change into cheese slices, but Kraft would not invest £12bn and then change the product so that no-one buys it.  This is a shame from a British viewpoint, but inevitable from a global markets perspective.  And I'm not convinced my children would want to visit a sliced-cheese factory."