Government plans to change the legislation will make the law more complicated, according to Thompsons which is the largest and most experienced claimant personal injury firm in the UK.

The response by Thompsons comes in the wake of a recent tragic accident in which a woman was trampled to death by a herd of cows while walking her dogs in a field in the Yorkshire Dales.

In another recent incident the former Home Secretary David Blunkett was injured by a charging cow. Suing the keepers of such animals for compensation has always been challenging but proposed changes to legislation would not help, says Tom Jones of Thompsons.

What is needed is amendment of the Animals Act 1971 to impose strict liability on the keepers of animals unless that happens uncertainties would remain, Mr Jones said. "Innocent victims of animal attacks face an uphill struggle to secure compensation in the face of aggressive and well-funded defences by insurers," he said.

Proposed amendments to section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act raise the prospect of even more litigation to clarify the meaning of the law. It is already necessary for a claimant to prove that an animal has certain characteristics the keeper should have been aware of, in order to succeed in a claim.

The need for a claimant to prove that the behaviour of the animal was normal, or for the keeper to prove that it was conditional on the circumstances would remain.

The current Act has become almost unusable by those claiming compensation says Thompsons which has a specialist animals claims unit running more than 100 cases at any one time.

Tom Jones said: "The campaign to have the Act amended so as to explicitly limit owners' liability is part of an insurance/defendant driven agenda that the cost of personal injury claims is too high, but it is ludicrous defences that drive up costs..

"Why shouldn't owners be responsible for their animals? If you can't control your animal or think your animal is unsafe then why should you get away with them injuring someone. If the injured party is in some way to blame for an accident, then a solicitor will advise whether the case is likely to succeed.

"The principle should be that the owner of the cow that attacks someone on a right of way or the horse that bolts due to the young rider being unable to control it should be liable to the injured person."

Mary Walsh, Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article:  

"We can see the spectre of ‘the claims culture' being raised with this news story, but before jumping to unfounded conclusions, just consider the very serious injuries that can be inflicted by animals.  It used to be a source of humour when crossing a field to ‘watch for the bull or even a goat' for that matter because we all knew how inherently bad tempered they may be and the nature of injuries that could be inflicted.

But take this to the 21st century and consider that some breeds of dogs are now being used as a ‘weapon of choice' over carrying a knife and one can see the scale of the problem to the unsuspecting and innocent victims of such injuries, which are often horrific and life changing.  They usually require a lot of the resources of the National Health Service in reconstruction of the features of often chewed and mangled victims, notwithstanding the minor injuries that still require stitches or the plastering of broken limbs.

Of course people are under a duty to take care of themselves, but what if that person is walking along a country lane and a dog owner allowing their dog off the lead, knocks that person over and fractures their leg.  What recompense do they have if that dog owner does not have any insurance or the money to satisfy a judgement?  They may have lost earnings or even lost their job for being off sick for too long and they cannot receive any assistance from the law as it currently stands but are left to cope with the consequences of the injury..

What happens if a person is ‘set upon' by one of these ‘dogs used as weapons'?  Normally if a person is attacked the may have redress from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, but only if it could be shown that the dog attack was deliberate and of course the Police must take a person seriously to enable this.  If not, that victim is left with trying to seek compensation from the person concerned and if that dog owner is impecunious, then the victim will, in all likelihood, not succeed and left to cope with the consequences.

Nobody wants to see draconian measures when owning animals, but the occurrence of injuries caused by animals appears to be on the rise and it is now time to look again at the Animals Act 1971 and the issue of strict liability and even possibly the imposition of compulsory insurance for keeping animals of possibly a certain type; much like the TV Licence, before it is too late."

The Jury asked the question: "Will the north west benefit from the proposals in the Digital Britain report?

Steve replied, "Maybe, the report makes a number of headline-friendly recommendations, but lacks measures to help the creative, entertainment and software industries fight online piracy. Manchester and the North West have always been leaders in these fields, and while making broadband to all is a good thing, it may be letting the genie out of the bottle for an already confused public over what you can and can't download legally."

Please download the PDF below.

Steve, from Ralli law firm, played a major role in the launch of the firm's dedicated IP and media law team (listed for the first time in the 2008-2009 Edition of the Legal 500).

He was instrumental together with the Ralli partners, in creating the division alongside Phil Hitchen and in advising businesses in the creative, marketing, digital, PR, and entertainment industries.

Steve has played an active role as a member of pro∙manchester's business development committee, and is a keen networker, regularly attending the organisation's business seminars, 'big speaker' lunches and discussion forums.

Steve will contribute to pro∙manchester's board with his natural enthusiasm and commitment to bringing business to Manchester – the organisation's key objective. His business development expertise, including Web 2.0 and social media strategy, will ensure he is a real asset to the Board.

Earlier this year, Steve was shortlisted for "Young Lawyer of the Year" and "Special Contribution" at the 2009 pro∙manchester/North West Business Insider Young Professional Awards.

Commenting on his appointment, Steve said:

"Membership of pro∙manchester has always been key to the development of Ralli's IP and Media Team as well as my own career. My involvement as a committee member has provided me with  invaluable experience and insight as well as broadening my network of contacts. I can't wait to see what the coming year has in store.

"It's an absolute privilege to be associated with such a prestigious organisation that does so much good work for the financial and professional sector in Manchester. I'm thrilled to be a part of it."

Stephen Fox, Senior Partner at Ralli: "This is excellent news for Steve and is testament to the time and effort he and Ralli have invested in the organisation.

"Ralli is proud to be a member of pro∙manchester and recognises its value as a major business development forum in the city region."

Marilyn Croft was given a £3,000 gift from Mark as she was suffering from cancer.

But he then went to court to get the cash back – after claiming it was just a loan.

Devastated Marilyn defended the bankruptcy petition and earlier this month a county court judge ruled in her favour.

But Marilyn, 60, of Leigh, Lancs, has been left traumatised by her ordeal which she says was worse than her cancer scare.

Marilyn, said: "All I wanted was to clear my name. I am innocent. I am not a liar.

"It is a big relief to have won. I knew I was innocent all along but you never know what is going to happen at court. In his court statement he said I agreed to pay it back in a couple of months but the money was a gift. I told the truth.

"I do think about him and wonder why he has done it. Maybe I will never know. I just want to thank my solicitor Steve Kuncewicz for helping me through."

Marilyn's ordeal began two years ago when she started to feel unwell. It later turned out she was suffering from a form of skin cancer. Mark transferred £3,000 into her bank account.

"He paid for the treatment and everything was fine."

Marilyn believes things turned sour after a New Year's Eve party in 2007 when she fell out with Kerry.

"A few months later Mark said he wanted the money back," she added.

Mr Kuncewicz, of Ralli Solicitors, said: "The case was struck out. We are delighted for Marilyn."

Not only is the amount of the damages awarded significant, but so is the number of specific songs that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was alleged to have downloaded – 24. This equates to around $80,000 for each song. The case actually got underway back in 2006, when Jamie Thomas Rasset was sued by six of the major US record labels and ordered to pay $200,000 in damages; a retrial was ordered after a Judge found that the Jury had been given the wrong instructions.

Steve Kuncewicz, Intellectual Property and Media Lawyer at Ralli in Manchester, had this to say on the landmark verdict:

“A case like this has been a long time coming. Whilst the international Entertainment Industry has been calling for tougher measures to be taken against file-sharers and the RIAA (a traded group representing the US recording industry) has been especially active in pursuing them, this is the first case which has actually gone to trial, and in front of a Federal Jury. While the significance of the verdict is already in dispute, the RIAA is celebrating a decisive victory in its ongoing battle against filesharers, which has seen over 30,000 individual claims brought since 2003.

Although we are talking about a US decision which may not yet set a precedent due to the fact it was a jury trial and set in a system which allows for much greater punitive damages awards than in the UK, the significance of this case can't be ignored. It throws into sharp relief many of the practical issues surrounding how illegal downloaders may be dealt with by the Court – the RIAA has settled claims against the vast majority of other downloaders it has pursued for an average fee of $1,500 and has said that it was always willing to come to a settlement in this case without going to trial, but it looks as if Thomas-Rasset was determined to have her day in Court and this may well be what has led to such a huge award of damages. Although she only downloaded 20 or so songs, she was also accused of uploading around 1700 songs to the web via the Kazaa file-sharing site, which has recently become a legal download service.

Under UK law, we'd have to look at similar issues. It is an infringement of copyright to copy a song via a P2P file-sharing service onto your computer but it's also an infringement to make a copy available to the public via uploading it for other users to copy from you. This is the major issue behind illegal downloading; people sharing their entire record collections with the world in such a way as to prevent record companies charging for them. Either way, copyright infringement is punishable by the Civil courts through claims being brought by Copyright Owners but it's also a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine.

Previous cases in the UK have seen very large-scale downloaders punished, but so far the Music Industry and the Government have refrained from going after users who have copied a smaller amount of material. The Music Industry has lobbied the Government to cut off the internet connections of persistent offenders after a warning and “three strikes”. France passed a similar law recently, only to see it repealed on the grounds of being unconstitutional. This week's Digital Britain report out Ofcom in charge of reducing illegal downloading, but takes a “gradual” approach, beginning with warning letters to filesharers and eventually slowing down their broadband connection.

The Music Industry was outraged and has always wanted the Government to take a more proactive role in curtailing the problem, as the only other way to do so would be for the BPI or record labels to follow a similar campaign and sue downloaders individually, which would lead to huge legal costs and most likely see the Courts flooded with similar claims. It's also not straightforward to prove exactly who downloaded illegally when a number of people use the same computer. Thomas-Rasset claimed that her ex-Husband or even her Children may actually have been the guilty parties.

But there's also another issue. Thomas-Rasset has said that she simply can't pay the fine. This will be the major problem for the Music Industry if a similar trend for prosecutions begins in the UK. Copyright cases are usually expensive for a Record Label to litigate and there's no guarantee that a man in the street would be able to pay the Claimant's costs if a claim came before the Civil Courts, or even a fine in the Criminal Courts, potentially leading to a number of phyrric victories for the Music Industry which will almost certainly generate a huge amount of bad publicity in exchange for creating a deterrent to illegal filesharing which will take some time to filter through into the public consciousness.

A number of measures need to be put in place to control the problem – firstly the Government needs to educate the Public on how Copyright works and why illegal downloading is such a problem. Secondly, it needs to deal with offenders in a way which sends a clear message that filesharing will not be tolerated in their new “world-leading knowledge economy” and finally it falls to the music Indusry to make as much content as they can available for legal download at an affordable price and look at new ways of doing business and engaging with their Customers.

Even so, it's probably only a matter of time before the first major deterrent case against an individual filesharer comes before the UK Courts. Although it could be a public relations disaster for the music industry to turn on its users, it may be the only way for them to get their message across. It's very doubtful that a UK Court would ever award such a huge amount in damages, mainly because our system would value each song at the sale price charged for it and then consider the number of times it has been copied to come up with a figure. It's a fairly safe bet that the Royal Courts of Justice won't award £50 to 60,000 for a song which could be purchased via iTunes for around 80p. Any criminal penalties, though, could be very severe if prosecutions are brought after the proposed raising of the maximum fine for copyright infringement in the magistrates Court being from £5,000 to £50,000.

Apparently the RIAA's US campaign has seen a cut in illegal downloading figures. If the Government really does intend to reduce filesharing by 70%, it's likely that we'll see more extreme measures used to reach that target. “

Among more headline-friendly recommendations such as a monthly 50p “broadband tax” on every home or business with a landline and cutting into the BBC's licence fee to partly fund the national upgrade, the Report sets out a number of measures to bring internet piracy under control, including moving the responsibility for reducing unlawful filesharing to OFCOM, who will send out written warnings to illegal downloaders and release details of the identities of repeat offenders, as well as allowing ISPs to slow down the speed of broadband connections to offenders or blocking them from websites which host pirated content.

Steve Kuncewicz, IP & Media Lawyer at Ralli in Manchester, had this to say on the Report's findings.

“The Digital Britain report has been a long time coming and has been heavily anticipated by the Digital and Creative Industries, mainly due to the fact that they have wanted to know how the Government intends to deal with the very real and growing problem of illegal downloading. It's a problem which some are beginning to feel has been exaggerated by the entertainment industry but there is a very real issue which the Government has been wrestling with for some time – music, software and movie piracy now takes place primarily over the internet and the process is made a lot easier if you have a broadband connection.

Over the web, you can transfer files extremely quickly and simply, which is far more worrying to the entertainment industry than Pirate DVDs being sold in pub car parks. Illegal copies can be spread around the world in a matter of days if not hours. 20th Century Fox saw the extent of the problem recently when an unfinished DVD-quality copy of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” made its way onto the web and was downloaded over a million times before its release in cinemas. It still made over $85 Million its first weekend, but many believe that it would have made a lot more had a million people not seen it first.

Originally, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were asked to take more responsibility for illegal downloading as they make it possible in the first place by providing a connection to the Internet. Unsurprisingly, this met with huge resistance from every ISP on the grounds that policing the activities of their users would be nearly impossible, except for Virgin, which began sending out letters warning users who were using their services to download illegally to stop. After continuing calls from the global entertainment industry to take action, France took the first step towards what was suggested should be the solution in the UK – cutting off access to the internet for illegal downloaders after “three strikes”. This didn't last long, however, as it was held to be unconstitutional.

The Government has said that it intends to reduce illegal filesharing by 70% within two years. This is a very ambitious, if not impossible target. Given the fact that there is still clearly a huge amount of confusion in the minds of consumers over the difference between legal and illegal downloading, warning letters will take a long time to have any effect, if indeed they do at all. At the end of the day, a Court Order would still be needed to finally disconnect a downloader from the Web, which is costly and time-consuming, with much of the legal budget being picked up by the entertainment industries. Even then, the technology to pinpoint exactly who is using a computer to download illegally is already becoming out of date and the process is extremely slow. If you went after each individual pirate, then the cost would potentially bankrupt the creative industries and lead to a situation where they simply can't afford to create new content.

The solution has to be in educating the public and getting the message across that if you don't pay to download content or it's not made clear that the download is completely free of charge, then the chances are that the owners of copyright in the content haven't given you permission. Under the black letter of the law, the vast majority of material available for download, legal or otherwise, is protected by copyright. If you copy or download it without permission, then either the owner of the content can sue you or you could be prosecuted. No arguments about the fairness of the entertainment industry's price structure or the lack of availability of content are going to change this, as it is the only way for money to be made out of creativity and as such the only way the industry can survive.

Until business and pricing structures change or the Government relaxes copyright protection, then illegal downloaders are likely to meet much harsher action as record labels or movie studios start to target the audience the Government doesn't want them to – the man in the street, rather than organised criminals. Although there's a difference in the penalties that an occasional downloader may face, there's no change in the legal approach – copyright infringement is, according to the report “tantamount to theft”. What is certain is that illegal downloaders will face penalites more often, and that as the entire country moves towards being more connected, those penalties will become harsher as the entertainment industry struggles to stay in business. “

Paula Jefferies, 46, broke her left ankle when she lost her footing on a concrete ramp outside Gatley Tandoori in Stockport. She went on to develop a potentially life-threatening blood clot on her lung as a result of being left immobile .

The mum-of-two then sued the Northenden Road restaurant. She blamed her fall on the concrete ramp at the restaurant's entrance, saying it was dangerous because of its steeply sloping sides.

A judge at Manchester County Court ruled the slope was a 'trap for the unwary' because it failed to extend across the full width of the door and because its sides were 'too steep'.

Now the restaurant has lost an appeal at London's Civil Appeal Court.

It means Mrs Jefferies, from Heald Green, is guaranteed a damages payout - which is estimated to be in five figures - three years after the fall that left her in hospital. She told the M.E.N: "I'm just very pleased and relieved that it's over. It's been quite stressful. I'm just elated. It's a big weight off my shoulders."

Mrs Jefferies was at the restaurant on an early-evening family outing to celebrate the birthday of her eldest daughter, Hannah, when she fell on December 16, 2005. Her foot slipped from under her as she stepped out of the door and onto the ramp after the family had finished dining.

She was taken to Wythenshawe Hospital for treatment and went on to develop a pulmonary embolism a short time later. She was rushed back to hospital in an ambulance and had to stay there for four days.

Mrs Jefferies was off work for four months following the injury.

She said: "We'd been out at the Gatley Tandoori for my daughter's birthday. She was 12. We'd had takeaways from there before and thought we'd try the restaurant.

"There was a bit of concrete in the doorway and I slipped off it when I stepped out, breaking my left ankle.

"It was just before Christmas and it was a major upset. It's not good having mum in plaster just before Christmas.

"Then I had a pulmonary embolism, a blood clot on the lung. It was a result of the fracture, because of being immobile.

"I could have died that day. The doctors said I was lucky. It's upsetting when I think back. I didn't get a chance to say goodbye to my daughters that morning because they were in bed."

She added: "The restaurant pushed this to the end and we've been on tenterhooks. They said the concrete was safe and I was wearing heels, but they weren't particularly high.

"The judge reviewed all the evidence, including surveyors' reports. I'm just pleased this is over and that we've won."

A judge at Manchester County Court found the restaurant liable at a hearing on January 14 this year.

But Timothy Willitts, representing the restaurant at the appeal court in London on Wednesday , asked Lady Justice Smith to overturn that ruling and absolve the curry business of blame.

He argued the judge in Manchester had no evidence to find Mrs Jefferies had stepped on the unsafe side of the ramp, rather than losing her footing on the front surface agreed safe by both parties.

But Lady Justice Smith rejected his argument and dismissed his application for permission to appeal, guaranteeing Mrs Jefferies a payout for her injuries.

Lady Justice Smith said: "The finding that she stepped on the side of the ramp was not supported by direct evidence, but it was an inference which was open to the judge.

"For that reason, I don't think that there is any prospect that the Court of Appeal will overturn this decision."

The amount of Mrs Jefferies' compensation will now be assessed at another court hearing unless a settlement is agreed.

Sonya Byrom, Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article: “This case shows how bad design, lack of thought, and presumably, lack of investment, can end up being very costly in the long run. It also highlights the paramount importance of getting a job done properly, especially with regards to issues of health and safety.

It would seem that whoever had constructed the ramp to the entrance of this premises had clearly sought to “cut corners” when installing it, not even extending it across the full width of the doorway, and leaving it with very steep sides, thereby creating an obvious risk of injury to customers entering and exiting the restaurant.

The apparent desire to save a few pounds with the design/construction of the ramp has ended up costing the restaurant and their insurers very dear, and nearly costing the unfortunate Mrs Jeffries her life.

It is a shame that it all too often takes someone injuring themselves, with all the negative ramifications to their life, and their family's lives that such injuries entail, to highlight and force changes to what are very often obviously dangerous hazards,  especially when such hazards appear to be the result of a desire to keep down costs.”

Amy St Johnston was a 16-year-old pupil at Oundle School when she got drunk at a Valentine's Day ball and fell 15ft from her first-floor window. Miss St Johnston, now a 20-year-old classics student at Selwyn College, Cambridge, claims that the incident happened because of a “drinking culture” among students at the school. She is reported to be demanding £300,000 in damages.

Miss St Johnston now sufferers from partial paraplegia, which can lead to limb paralysis, and walks with the aid of crutches.

Her writ alleges that the window she fell from opened to 12 inches, three times the legal maximum. Documents lodged at the High Court say that Oundle was in loco parentis, and accuse the school of failing in its duty of care by leaving Miss St Johnston in the room while it was “known she was under the influence of alcohol”.

She says that before the ball she had consumed “a combination of alcoholic drinks” over several hours. When teachers noticed that she was walking unsteadily, she was sent to “cool off”, but the writ alleges that she then returned to the ball.

After the accident, Miss St Johnson left the school to continue her sixth-form studies elsewhere.

Miss St Johnson refused to discuss the case yesterday. “I don't really want to talk about it, I don't think I should — partly because of legal reasons but also because it's just not something I want to discuss,” she told the Daily Mail.

A spokeswoman for Oundle confirmed that a writ had been served on the school but said she could not comment further. “The matter is being dealt with by the school's legal advisers,” she said.

Oundle's rules state that sixth formers can drink beer, cider and wine at officially permitted social events where a “substantial meal” is served.

The writ says that since 1969 the British Standard Code of Practice has recommended that limiters be fitted on windows above ground level, restricting opening to less than 4 inches. The 1998 edition of Building Regulations also required such windows to be fitted with limiters or safety guards to prevent falls.

It is a question that few intellectual property lawyers probably grappled with in law school: can a chocolate bunny be trademarked? Yet it is at the heart of a long-running legal battle between Switzerland's Lindt & Sprüngli, maker of the luxury Lindt chocolate brand, and an Austrian competitor.

The Swiss chocolatier began making chocolate rabbits — distinctive with their gold foil wrapping, red ribbon and bell — in the 1950s and produces millions a year. It trademarked the design in 2001 and has pursued smaller competitors across Europe, accusing them of copying its design.

Yesterday, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked to consider whether Lindt had acted in “bad faith” when it registered its trademark. Hauswirth, a small Austrian chocolate maker that also produces a gold-wrapped chocolate rabbit, had challenged the validity of Lindt's trademark, arguing that chocolate rabbits have been around for decades. It accused Lindt of using its dominant market position to kill competition.

Lindt took action against Hauswirth in 2004 and the case has been in the Austrian courts since. It was referred to the ECJ after the Austrian Supreme Court sought guidance on whether knowing, or being in a position to know, that a trademarked subject is similar to one being used by a rival constituted bad faith.

Yesterday, the ECJ said the Austrian court should take into account whether a company knew that others were producing similar goods when it applied for a trademark and whether it was seeking to push rivals out of the market. It did not give a specific opinion on whether Lindt's trademark was obtained in bad faith. The Austrian courts will now decide.

In another chocolate-related case, Ferrero, maker of the Ferrero Rocher brand, was cleared by Mr Justice Briggs, in the High Court, of a €23 million (£19.5 million) fraud claim by international banks. Ferrero was accused of complicity in a Turkish supplier's false invoice scam in 2001 and 2002.

• Construction
• Banking
• Contract
• Landlord and Tenant
• Insolvency
• Corporate
• Environmental
• Intellectual Property

The successful applicant should have the ability and desire to lead, manage and motivate a team of four solicitors and to market and develop the firm's business litigation services to a diverse and ambitious existing client base, together with prospective new clients.

If you would like to apply for the role of Head of Business Litigation, please do not hesitate in completing and submitting an online application form, call 0870 998 9000 or e-mail Lisa Sykes.

Andrew Young, who spent two years in jail for his role in a £1m mortgage scam, landed a £35,000 legal job at the university. He was suspended after bosses learned about his past. He is seeking £25,000 damages at a tribunal, claiming the university was at fault for not doing a criminal check or asking about the gap on his CV.

His role as a contracts officer at the university involved drawing up agreements between the university and private firms. He was there from 2006 until October 2008. Mr Young, 43, from Hale, said: "I was told there would be a criminal records check and I was ready to answer the question. They never took up any of my references or carried out the check.

"You are advised by the parole service to present yourself in the best light. I was quite happy to talk about my conviction if I was asked but I was not obliged to hold up my hand.

"I never said I was a practising solicitor and my CV made clear that I had not been working as a solicitor. The job involved only paperwork and there was no opportunity to have access to funds."

The father-of-two qualified as a solicitor in 1990 and worked for a Manchester law firm before setting up his own practice in Didsbury.

But the Law Society closed down this practice in 2001 after complaints about dishonesty and Mr Young was later struck off by the High Court for serious financial irregularities.

In May 2004 he was jailed for 21 months for theft and in November that year was jailed for a further two years for his role in a property scam.

Manchester University refused to comment on the tribunal case, which is due to be heard next week

Frail Gwendoline Hoar, 91, was found bed-bound, underfed, dehydrated and with her back, hips and feet covered in too many ulcers to count. She was in dreadful pain but managers at the private home refused to give her pain relief until the final two days of her life.

The home and its staff were slammed at an inquest. River Court, Watford - run by Britain's biggest private health firm BUPA - is now blacklisted by social services and five staff have been sacked. Two GPs who visited Mrs Hoar and failed to help her have refused to co-operate with the coroner or the primary care trust.

Today - two years after she died - no one has been arrested over her death. Now a charity has accused the Government of reneging on a promise last year to bring in new laws to protect the elderly. Gwen's family now want a full inquiry. Son-in-law Gavin Langley said: "What happened was avoidable and dreadful. Someone has to be held to account. It's horrifying."

Gwen lived at home until the death of second husband Stan in 2004. He had been her teen sweetheart and they wed after first husband Cyril died. Gavin said: "They had 25 blissful, happy years. It was idyllic."

The pair were well known in their home town of Hemel Hempstead, Herts, and went to Clacton-on-Sea every year for their holidays. When Gwen developed dementia devoted Stan cared for her at home until his death. She went into one nursing home where she was well looked-after, but her condition got worse and she had to move to River Court. Both homes were paid for from savings.

"It was a shame because she was so happy in the first place. It was a nice home," said Gavin.

Within four months of entering River Court she was close to death. After concerns were raised about the home, BUPA sent in skin expert Ann Moore, told the inquest into Mrs Hoar's death: "I found a frail little lady in her room who appeared quite undernourished.

She was very dehydrated. I could see she hadn't been turned frequently. In fact she hadn't been turned at all, according to the documentation."

Ms Moore found more wounds than listed in the notes. Some had dressings but others were open to infection. A specialist mattress to relieve sores had not been fitted properly so was of no benefit.

It was another month - and only after a visit from inspectors - before the local health trust was called in. Two district nurses who examined Gwen were shocked by her condition, which had got even worse. One said there were too many sores to list.

Some were found to be Grade 4 - the most serious - with skin and tissue split down to the bone. But instead of sending her to hospital doctors took the advice of a BUPA nurse that Gwen should be treated in the home.

The inquest heard that when they were urged to provide 24-hour pain relief for Gwen, managers "resisted" installing the equipment until two days before she died.

A post-mortem found the sores were so painful they stopped Gwen moving, which led to pneumonia.

Coroner Graham Danbury said the care provided at the home was "seriously disturbing". A spokesman for Herts County Council said that after Gwen's death part of the home was closed for a £330,000 refurbishwho ment. Patients began to be readmitted in October, but a month later admissions were stopped again when inspectors gave it a zero rating.

Marie Meurier, who was in charge of the dementia unit at River Court, was sacked along with four other nurses. She refused to comment.

All five face disciplinary hearings by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which could strike them off. The local primary care trust said its nurses were not called until a late stage. It added: "It is clear that up until district nurses were called in, Mrs Hoar had not been receiving the appropriate level of care."

Richard Biggs, Associate and member of the Nursing Home Abuse team at Ralli comments: "These horrific stories of neglect and abuse highlight the dreadful state of care homes in the UK. Sadly it appears that it does not matter how much the care home costs or the reputation of the provider, the standard of care can still fall well below what should reasonably be expected.

Ralli has a dedicated nursing home abuse team who regretfully regularly hear similar stories of neglect.  We always advise families who have concerns regarding their relatives in care homes to look out for a number of warning signs which might indicate abuse.

We have also entered into discussions with charities for the elderly with a view to seeing how we can lobby the government to better regulate care homes. As it stands, the regulation of care homes in the UK is very poor and desperately needs improvement."

Michael Adams, a self-employed businessman from St Albans believes he was one of thousands of motorists who are falling victim to a potentially lethal 'cash for crash' insurance scam.

It involves criminals deliberately staging road accidents; usually by slamming on their brakes so an innocent driver behind has no chance of avoiding a collision. The fraudster then claims against the other driver's insurance company for damage and injuries such as whiplash.

Mr Adams approached the M10 roundabout, where he spotted two other cars that appeared to be "dithering around", one of the vehicles - a Honda Civic - slammed its brakes on so he could not avoid hitting it, causing over £3000 worth of damage.

Mr Adams, 54, said: "The man got out of his car and when I asked him why he stopped he said the car in front had braked."

One of the men involved in the accident claimed he did not speak English despite writing down his name and address for Mr Adams.

Amazingly just day's later three separate personal injury claims were lodged by the driver of the Honda Civic and two passengers.

Now Mr Adams has lost two years no claims bonus and will be forced to pay a much higher premium when he goes to renew his insurance because of the personal injury claims lodged against him.

Mr Adams said: "I just want to warn people to be aware if they see cars being driven strangely like these two to keep well back in case they are trying to trap another driver to win big cash payouts."

Amanda Hatton, Associate at Ralli comments "Unfortunately there are a number of fraudsters who deliberately cause road traffic accidents in order to bring personal injury claims.

However Insurance Companies are increasingly aware of these and are making attempts to reduce the same. Insurance Companies share information with other Insurance Companies to try and identify serial offenders and investigate all cases where they suspect fraud.

The advice given in the article to stay well back if a driver suspects that another car is being driven strangely is very sensible. Obviously it is a driver's responsibility to ensure that they have a safe stopping distance between their vehicle and the vehicle in front. 

However it should be remembered that the vast majority of claimants in personal injury claims following a road traffic accident are entirely genuine. As a Solicitor who assists genuine victims of road traffic accidents, I am concerned that we should not let the few fraudsters who try to abuse the legal process, taint the genuine claimants.

Here, at Ralli we have a specialist team who assist clients injured in road traffic accidents through no fault of their own. We do not act for anyone we suspect of trying to bring a fraudulent claim." 

It happened to Fleetwood Mac in the 1970s, Pink Floyd in the 1980s and now Black Sabbath is now facing a battle over exactly who has the right to use their name after original vocalist and music icon Ozzy Osbourne announced his intention to sue founding guitarist Tony Iommi over ownership of the Black Sabbath brand.

The hugely influential and immensely successful band has had a long and complicated history and is well-known in the music community for having a revolving-door lineup after Osbourne was fired in 1979. Subsequent lineups have met with varying degrees of success, leading to a lucrative reunion tour featuring the original lineup in 1997 and persistent rumours of a new album.

However, in the intervening years Osbourne became a star in his own right, with combined record sales and concert income which easily eclipsed those of his former band, who carried on with different frontmen (including Ronnie James Dio of Rainbow and Ian Gillan of Deep Purple) until bassist Geezer Butler and drummer Bill Ward also quit the band in the mid 1980s, leaving Iommi to carry on under the “Black Sabbath” name (sometimes due to the demand of his Record Label) with a largely anonymous cast of session musicians and other temporary replacements until the “Reunion” tour, which led to the band being inducted into the UK and US Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2006 and saw Osbourne and Iommi performing “Paranoid” at the Queen's “Party At The Palace”  concert to celebrate her Golden Jubilee.

Mainly due to Osbourne's solo recording commitments, the original lineup of Black Sabbath has not been able to finish work on a new album or organise another tour since 2004, leading Iommi to reconvene one of the many lineups of Black Sabbath since 1980 as “Heaven and Hell” and release new album “The Devil You Know” earlier this year.

Lommi himself sued concert promoter Live Nation in December 2008, claiming that the music conglomerate sold merchandise which used Black Sabbath's logo after the expiration of an agreement between them in 2006, and shortly afterwards took action to reclaim Black Sabbath's trade mark. Most of the music press believe that it was Iommi's claim which ultimately led to Osbourne taking action against him.

IP & Media Lawyer Steve Kuncewicz had this comment on the complicated dispute:

“This kind of dispute is getting more and more common among the elder statesmen of the UK music industry, especially where they've been able to reform after long periods apart and extend their lifespan way beyond what they originally expected. Pink Floyd, one of the most successful groups the UK has ever produced, had a very similar dispute in the 80's when frontman and songwriter Roger Waters left and tried to put a stop to the rest of the Band carrying on without him under the same name.

This however, is a little bit different. Black Sabbath made their name based on the original line-up, which was hugely successful. In the case of Pink Floyd, the band carried on after Waters left to the same kind of success that they'd enjoyed previously, whereas Tony Iommi's various incarnations of Black Sabbath have become progressively less successful over the years as the original members left, with the band's name being used for every album he made with whatever backing musicians he chose to employ. All this changed, however in 1997, when Ozzy Osbourne, Bill Ward and Geezer Butler rejoined the band and completely revitalised their fortunes, selling out arenas all over the world, releasing a platinum-selling and Grammy ward-winning live album. The band was as big as they had ever been, and many claim, with some justification, that this would never have happened if the original line-up had never reformed.

It is Iommi's opinion that he is Black Sabbath that's at the heart of this case, which doesn't sit easily with the fact that he's called his latest project “Heaven and Hell” despite the fact that all of the members were in one of the later lineups of Black Sabbath.  After his action against Live Nation got underway, Iommi claimed sole ownership of the band's name as a Trademark at the US Patent and Trade Mark Office, which Osbourne claims is illegal.

Osbourne is suing for a 50% interest in the band's name, as well as royalties for merchandise sold since their mid-90s reunion, noting that the only reason the brand is worth so much now is because he and his team were heavily involved in revitalising it and for “quality control” over a campaign which included licensed merchandise, album reissues and touring income, mainly generated through Sabbath's appearance on Osbourne's own “Ozzfest” tours. Osbourne claims that he eventually hopes that all four of the original members will ultimately end up owning the rights to the name.

The legal issues behind all of this are, by turns, really simple and really complicated. Black Sabbath are no strangers to litigation, having sued their management in the mid ‘70s and being injuncted from performing until that claim was settled. Entering into a Band is entering into a “Partnership at Will” under English law, and if there is no agreement between the partners as to how profits and goodwill in the band's name should be split, then the default provisions of the Partnership Act 1890 will apply. It's always better to draw up your own bespoke Agreement, however, as the 1890 Act is in dire need of an overhaul.

Ownership of the name stems from this theory. Even though the Band's name came from an obscure ‘30s horror film, the fact that the name has become associated with them enough to act as a “badge of origin” means that it can, and has, been registered as a Trade Mark.

The Courts gave valuable advice on this area of law in the 2003 case of Byford v Oliver and Dawson, which coincidentally involved the remaining members of 80's British Heavy Metal band Saxon registering their name as a Trade Mark without the involvement of original frontman “Biff” Byford, who claimed that the Trade Mark should not have been granted on the basis that he owned a percentage of the goodwill in the Saxon name. In this case, Oliver and Dawson had actually tried to prevent Byford from using the name and although at first instance the Trade Mark Registry ruled in their favour on the basis that each band member owned goodwill in its name and that it was simply a matter of whoever registered the name first would own the Trade Mark, Biff Byford had the last laugh.

Byford took his case to the Court of Appeal and the late Judge Laddie found in his favour, ruling that a band was a partnership at will (i.e. one which exists as long as the members want it to) and that any goodwill attached to its name belonged to the partnership jointly rather than to one individual.

So, if the Black Sabbath diapute were to be tried in the UK, Osbourne's claim would probably succeed following the Saxon case, which saw a change in the law up to that point. Essentially, if a band dissolves, then that original Partnership at Will comes to an end unless there is some kind of agreement to the contrary, meaning that no-one can use the name without the permission of the original members. There would be differences here, as Iommi has been using the name for years, however the likely outcome would probably be that the original line-up of Black Sabbath owns the right to its name on an equal basis, rather than Osbourne and Iommi in a 50/50 split.

Musicians everywhere should always look into getting a Partnership Agreement drafted to deal with what happens to the band name if they split and if not, it's clear that any remaining members will not be able to register a trade mark against the name and carry on regardless with a monopoly to stop anyone else from using it. In Sabbath's own words, the new band may end up “Killing Itself To Live”.

Ralli has a dedicated Media Team and specialist Partnership Law Department who can offer assistance to any start-up or existing Bands who would like to discuss any of the issues in this article. Call Steve Kuncewicz on 0870 998 9048 or Mark Briegal on 0870 998 9005 for an informal chat.   

Parminder Singh, 24, and a fellow worker plummeted to the ground after a girder holding his work cradle snapped in August 2005. Mr Singh suffered serious back, leg and head injuries but civil engineer Matthew Gilbert, 27, died.

His four-year fight for personal injury compensation was delayed when the Home Office refused him re-entry to the UK after convalescing in India because his visa had lapsed. Mr Singh was living with his family in Slough at the time of the accident but now lives in Melbourne and is retraining to be an IT worker.

He said: "I can't remember much about the fall but I suffered nightmares for months. It was truly a miracle I survived. My leg was broken and my knee, back, jaw and teeth were injured. Life has been very difficult. I have been left with one leg shorter than the other and unless I move about my body seizes up."

Doctors credited the martial arts expert's survival to his high fitness levels. The collapse may have been caused by faulty bolts on a metal support which the men were attempting to fit. London Evening Standard

Sarah Anyon, Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article: "Accidents on construction sites make up a considerable proportion of work-related accidents. Many injuries result from falling from heights or down unguarded holes, or being struck by falling objects.

This accident appears to have resulted from faulty work equipment and liability may have arisen from a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, which places an absolute duty upon employers to ensure that all work equipment is well maintained and in good working order. There are also duties placed on main site contractors under the Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 to ensure workers on their sites are safe.

Although Mr Singh's injuries were severe, thankfully they were not fatal. Those injuries, both physical and psychological, clearly have had a significant impact upon his life, both personally and professionally. Although he has been left with permanent restrictions in his mobility, it is encouraging to hear that he is trying to move on with his life.

Quite often, these types of injuries can mean an end to your career and for someone like Mr Singh, who was a manual worker in the construction industry, it will mean considering retraining in more sedentary or office based employment. If this means a loss in wages or potential earning capacity, it can been factored into your compensation, in addition to any retraining costs. You can also be compensated for the fact that you are forced into an alternative profession that you will find less enjoyable.

Here at Ralli we deal with a large number of accidents at work, many of those taking place on constructions sites. If you would like free and confidential advice on an accident you have been involved in, please contact Ralli on 0870 998 9000."

Owen's solicitor John Kelly told a High Court judge the Daily Express article had falsely claimed Premier League clubs would not sign him and he was nearing retirement due to his lack of interest in the game.

"These incredulous allegations are entirely without foundation and were obviously extremely distressing, hurtful and damaging to the claimant," Mr Kelly said.

He added that the allegations had not been put to Owen before publication and they would have been discredited if they had. The Daily Express' back-page splash read "Unwanted Toon striker at a cross roads, Finished at 29?" and was followed by the line "Owen ready for sad finale".

After the first edition was published Owen's lawyers contacted the paper and the article was later replaced with one entitled "Owen: I'm not finished".

Michael is delighted to have won his case and to have set the record straight.

Michael Owen's spokesman Mr Kelly said: "Despite this change, the damage to the claimant's reputation had been done, especially as the first edition of the newspaper was published in Newcastle.

"The article has resulted in significant speculation as to the claimant's intentions at the end of the season."

The Newcastle United and England player found the article particularly offensive because it was published the day before an important game in which his club were battling relegation and two weeks before the transfer window.

Express Newspapers accepted the allegations were false and agreed to pay damages and Owen's legal costs. The newspaper's lawyer Ian Helme apologised for the distress, embarassment and offence caused to the striker.

Owen was not present at the High Court when the settlement was decided.

His spokesman said: "Michael is delighted to have won his case and to have set the record straight.

"He would have preferred not to take action, but had no alternative in this case."

More than 90,000 counterfeit documents were produced at a property in West London, allowing hundreds of people to cheat UK border controls.

Isleworth Crown Court was told how Indian nationals Jatinder Sharma and Rakhi Shahi took advantage of a "shambolic" system of immigration checks. Mr Sharma's wife Neelam was also found guilty of possessing criminal property.

Prosecutor Francis Sheridan said evidence gathered for the case presented a "damning indictment" of failures by the Home Office to spot the fraudsters, who submitted hundreds of bogus visa applications.

Sharma, 44, was only caught after he offered to get an undercover reporter a post graduate diploma in business administration and other fraudulent documents for about £4,000. The scam mainly targeted the government's Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) a points based system which gives preference to those in desired professions, like doctors and dentists.

The international Graduate Scheme and other leave to remain applications were also exploited.

Mr Sheridan said: "The Home Office system was designed to operate with trust.

"The evidence shows it was naive in its conception and a shambles in reality, but it did not justify someone taking full advantage to cheat the system time and time again..."

Metropolitan Police officers and officials from the UK Border Agency swooped on the fraudsters' company Univisas, based in Southall, west London, in February 2008.

They discovered a mountain of documents, including false university certificates, academic records, bank statements and pay slips.

Investigators also uncovered records of more than 900 people who had been given documentation by Univisas. Of a sample 117 analysed in detail, 113 were found to contain fraudulent information.

Those behind the scam were so confident, they offered a money back guarantee to clients who they charged fees from hundreds to thousands of pounds. The gang lived together in Clarence Street, Southall, and hid behind a complex web of false identities and documentation.

They outsourced the production of many false documents to a handful of bogus colleges, that functioned mainly as fronts for visa scams. One former employee, who was paid £100 a week for administrative work, described how she handed over a bag of £64,000 in £50 notes at one college in return for a pile of certificates.

To date, around £420,000 worth of assets belonging to the gang remain frozen.

Although the fraudsters behind this visa scam have now been brought to justice, officials admit many other organised criminal gangs are still out there, trying to find new ways of flouting Britain's Border Controls.

She has included Michael Savage on a list of banned visitors that included a Hamas politician, anti-gay protesters and a Jewish extremist. Savage was furious to feature on the list and said that he would bring a legal action for defamation. Yesterday the Home Office announced that it would staunchly fight any proceedings.

It said: "He was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making comments that might provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.

"Any legal proceedings would be robustly defended; we stand by our decision to exclude this individual. Coming to the UK is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life."

Savage has been accused of racism and homophobia and once wished that a critical caller would die of Aids. However, an appeal for donations to support his legal challenge posted on his website insists that he has never advocated violence.

The "shock jock", whose real name is Michael Alan Weiner, responded to the ban by saying: "She has painted a target on my back . . . this is lunatic, she is linking me up with Nazi skinheads who are killing people in Russia . . . She's putting me in a league with Hamas murderers who kill Jews on buses.

"I have never advocated violence. I've been on the air 15 years. My views may be inflammatory, but they're not violent in any way."

It was reported yesterday that Savage and had instructed the London-based solicitors Olswang to begin proceedings for a £100,000 lawsuit. The lawyers have written to Ms Smith and demanded she retract the allegations and make a personal apology.

Q. I'm a female employee and have been downgraded in my job, losing several thousand pounds a year. I have discovered a male member of staff who carries out the same job as me has been upgraded and will therefore be paid more than I for the same role. What can I do about it?

David Mutty, 59, from Dundee, was doing night shifts at a private nursing home as well as working full-time in an NHS hospital caring for elderly dementia patients. Mutty was suspended after allegations that he had abused patients at St Columba's nursing home, run by private care firm Southern Cross.

Following a police investigation, NHS Tayside also suspended enrolled nurse Mutty from duty at Liff Hospital, where he had worked for more than ten years. The allegations included claims Mutty was aggressive towards elderly and frail patients at St Columba's and that he swore and used highly offensive language towards them.

There were also allegations that Mutty's behaviour caused alarm and distress to other patients. He has also been accused of risking injuring patients at the expensive, private nursing home. Mutty was a full-time member of staff at NHS Tayside's Liff Hospital, where he worked four nights a week, caring for elderly dementia and psychiatric patients.

He was suspended on full pay from Liff last month after NHS bosses heard he was under investigation over abuse allegations. Following Mutty's suspension from St Columba's, where he had been working three nights a week for several years, the Mauritius-born nurse resigned from his part-time post.

The allegations surfaced in April following reports from concerned staff at St Columba's, which caters for around 60 patients. Management carried out an investigation. Mutty was interviewed by officers from Tayside Police and the Crown Office is considering whether to initiate criminal proceedings.

Outside his Dundee home, Mutty persistently denied his true identity. He later said: "I have nothing to say."

An NHS Tayside spokeswoman said: "We cannot comment at the present time." A police spokeswoman said: "A 59-year-old man has been charged."

A Crown Office spokesman confirmed a report had gone to the procurator-fiscal in connection with incidents between January and April 2009.

A spokesman for St Columba's care home in Dundee said: "Following allegations of ill-treatment, an investigation was launched into a male member of staff. He was immediately suspended, but resigned before an outcome had been determined.

"A police investigation is ongoing and, therefore, we are unable to comment further." Kurt Bayer-Scotsman

Timothy Johnson, Solicitor and member of the Nursing Home Abuse team at Ralli, comments on the article:

"Anyone who suspects that a relative or a loved one who is in care has been the victim of abuse can not only make a complaint statement to the police if it is believed that a criminal offence has been committed but can also refer the care provider to the Care Quality Commission.

The Care Quality Commission is the new health and social care regulator for England. They regulate health and adult social care services in England whether those services are provided in hospital by the NHS, in care homes (whether private or owned by local authorities), in people's own homes or elsewhere.

The CQC is responsible for the registration of health and social care providers to ensure that they meet essential common quality standards. They also monitor and inspect all health and adult social care.  They have a wide range of enforcement powers including fines and public warnings or closures and have flexibility in how their powers are used.  They can apply specific conditions in response to serious risks and can for example demand that a ward or service is closed until the care provider meets safety requirements and they can even suspend or take a care provider off the register. 

The aim of the CQC is to improve health and social care services. 

Prior to 1st April 2009 the regulation of health and care was the responsibility of the Health Care Commission, the Mental Health Act Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection.  Those organisations no longer exist and their functions are now the responsibility of the CQC. 

Abuse or neglect can also give rise to the possibility of a civil claim and our dedicated team at Ralli can give advice to anyone who is considering the possibility of making a claim arising of neglect or abuse by a carer. 

Research published this week by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property (SABIP) suggests that around seven million UK residents are involved in illegal downloading, with 1.3 million using one of the most popular peer-to-peer file sharing sites on one day in particular. The most shocking finding, however, is that over one year, UK users had free access to software including music, movies and game files estimated at a value of £120 billion.

The report also said that the new generation of broadband internet connections could deliver 200 MP3 files in five minutes, a DVD in three and the complete works of Charles Dickens in less than 10. Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy said that the report highlighted the effect that illegal downloading has on the UK economy as a whole, as well as upon industries which depend upon copyright as their main source of income, such as Entertainment and Technology providers.

Steve Kuncewicz, IP & Media Lawyer at Ralli in Manchester, had this comment: 

"This research is telling us what many already know, specifically that illegal downloading is now have a very significant and measurable effect upon the UK economy, and in particular upon the Creative and Technology industries.

The Government has spent the past few years following the publication of the Gower Report trying to come up with a strategy on how to deal with this problem, including the suggestion that Internet Service Providers should take more responsibility, proposing a "three strikes" rule which would see internet users disconnected after three warnings and dealing with increasingly angry calls from the Entertainment Industry to get more involved and deal with the problem.  

What the research shows is that the problem is very real beyond the hype and scare tactics but more importantly that it is growing and is more and more common across a number of age groups, rather than previous claims that it is most prevalent in the teen or student population. The message coming out of the report is that there is a lot of confusion in the minds of the public as to what material which is downloadable from the web is actually covered by copyright, with many believing that if software is free, then it isn't protected.

Something will have to give sooner rather than later. The Entertainment Industry is pushing for public action to be taken against the younger end of the market, with the Government reluctant to do so. The message has to get out to the public on three fronts – that the overwhelming majority of files available for download over the web will be protected by copyright, that the owners of that copyright can take action against file-sharers who download with permission or without paying to do so, and that with so much money being lost it's only a matter of time before we see high-profile criminal and civil cases being brought against individuals rather than the large-scale downloaders we've seen previously. "

Such as "removals" in Manchester or London, both of which are home to offices of JA Coles, a removals and transport contractor who is being sued by worldwide digital image providers Getty Images for copyright infringement over the use of a photograph on the JA Coles Website which was licensed to Getty for use by a Canadian Photographer. The claim has been issued in the High Court and seeks damages for, amongst other heads of claim, payment of the commercial royalty for use of the image, compensation for the costs spent in uncovering the unauthorised use and "loss of credibility".

Steve Kuncewicz, IP & Media Lawyer at Ralli in Manchester, had the following comment on what this means for businesses:

"This kind of case is nothing new, but it's a very timely reminder of how even fairly anodyne imagery is protected by copyright, how that copyright can be used to generate income, and how far businesses will go to ensure that income continues to be generated.

Under English Law, Copyright in a photograph will always belong to the photographer in question unless that photographer has made other arrangements or is taking the shot as part of his duties as an employee. Being the owner of that copyright means that you can restrain other people from copying or using the image without your permission, subject to a number of very limited exceptions. This is how professional photographers continue to generate an income.

In this case, the photographer has licensed the photograph to Getty, who are a huge worldwide "image bank". Getty will, at any time, have hundreds of thousands of images under license from their photographers, ranging from celebrities or "stock" pictures which will often appear in marketing materials, such as businessmen shaking hands, a cup of coffee on a boardroom table and so on. Getty will then use its massive resources to licence the images for use by third party customers and pay a royalty to the original photographer. This is now a very big and lucrative business for Getty as more and more businesses look to develop their brands through websites and often don't have the time or skill to produce professional imagery of their own. Of course, if an image is simply cut and pasted from the web and used on another website, then Getty's and the Photographer's revenues stream is going to be abruptly cut off.

Getty has a very strict policy on the use of their imagery without a license or permission and employs a number of in-house lawyers to take action against any infringers. Usually, cases don't go any further than a stern letter and a payment of the appropriate royalty (which is what the Court would award in damages), but here Getty seem determined to make an example of JA Coles as a deterrent to other businesses contemplating taking a similar short cut.

Use of unlicensed imagery may save you time in the short term, but in a period of economic decline where IP rights are being protected more and more jealously, the only way to protect yourself is to make sure that you have the rights to use all of the imagery on your website. There aren't may defences open to you and the most widely used, innocent infringement, can only be run in a very limited set of circumstances in cases where you can demonstrate a genuine belief that there was no copyright in the image in question (usually because the period of protection has expired).

Additionally, if a Web Design Agency or other third party has put together your website, their terms and conditions may contain an indemnity, meaning that, if the site which they produce contains unlicensed imagery, then they can't be sued for infringement.  You should always ask them to provide details of all of the images they use as well as invoices for licence fees paid.

We are likely to see more and more of these cases. The bottom line is, if you're going to use an image, either make sure that it belongs to you or make sure that you have the right to use it."
 

Fintan Fox Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli says:  "Every year we hear of fatalities on British roads involving motorcyclists. The reasons for this are varied but no one can be left in any doubt that riding a motorcycle presents a number of dangers, both to the motorcyclist and to other road users generally.
 
Steps taken by the DSA to make motorcyclists safer drivers both for their own benefit and for the benefit of others should therefore be commended at face value.
 
However, the introduction of the "swerve test" does appear to have raised a number of serious concerns.
 
The opinions and concerns raised by established motorcyclist and motorcyclist organisations within the article do need to listened to by both the government and the DSA if a serious injury or possible fatality is to be avoided in the future. The article tells us that within the first three and a half weeks of the test there were at least 15 incidents during the exam, with at least one rider left with broken bones!
 
If these figures are correct and can be shown to relate directly to this new element of the test then a review is warranted. 
 
The DSA does appear to have gone into some depth when designing this new element of the test having apparently involved the motorcycle industry to a degree and having undertaken 300 trials prior to its introduction.
 
Unfortunately, it would appear however that they have someway to go and the concerns raised within this article does require there urgent attention if they are not to leave themselves open to litigation in the future."

The research, which looked at 16 of the most popular websites hosting user photos, found that Social Networking Sites take a "lazy approach to user privacy, doing what's simpler rather than what's correct."

Steve Kuncewicz, IP & Media Lawyer at Ralli in Manchester, made the following comment:

"The issue here is that many of the websites covered by this research will use third-party servers to store photos, probably because of the sheer size of the files in question. Many users may be worried that, when a request is made to take down a less than complimentary photo or any other content which puts them in a negative light, it may still remain on the website even after it's been deleted.

There are clear legal issues here, the most important of which being copyright and privacy. A photograph is owned, for copyright purposes, by whoever took the photograph in the first place. The fact that Photographer owns the copyright means that they can control how it's used and restrain anyone else from making copies of it. However, sites such as Facebook and Bebo will obviously need to bear in mind any complaints made by third parties who are in the Photographs. Privacy and "Image Rights" are becoming much more widely-used causes in the Courts, but unless the photographs in question are particularly invasive (i.e. similar to what would appear in tabloids), then it's hard to see how a claim for damages based on privacy or image rights would stack up if considered by a Judge, mainly because image rights in particular are created via the interrelation of a lot of different legal principles and can be hard to rely upon in some cases unless you are a public figure whose image is licensed to third parties so that you can make money from it, as was the case when Eddie Irvine sued Talksport a few years ago.

The sites will usually fall back on their terms of use, which in Facebook's case, have come under heavy criticism recently. In February,the site was forced into a U-Turn over controversial plans to change its terms of service to include wording which would allow them to retain some ownership over any content posted onto the site so that it could be used by advertisers or other third parties, which would include photographs. However, the fact is that the terms of use of many of the websites covered by the survey will contain provisions which grant the site a license to us whatever you upload and share it with at least other users. Anyone who would have a problem with this should consider not signing up or altering their privacy settings.

That said, if a request is made for a photo or other material to be deleted or taken down, then it's up to the websites to act quickly. The 2002 Electronic Commerce Directive Regulations provide that Social Networking Websites (as "service providers") will not normally be liable for damages as a result of any content which they host unless they fail, when notified by a third party, to remove any unlawful content (which would include defamatory remarks, copied music & movie files and invasive photographs) as quickly as possible. Facebook and the other social networking sites appear to be failing to do so and if this is the case, then it's only a matter of time before one of them ends up having to defend a claim which, if given enough publicity, could seriously dent their own reputation amongst their users and see many deleting their accounts for fear of what may show up on the site without their knowledge."

"Of course London and Southern based clients are coming to Manchester in increasing numbers for their legal work", and we are one of the firms who are benefitting substantially from this trend.

Ralli and other leading Manchester firms have the expertise technology and capacity to do corporate and private client work at rates which do not have to provide for London City Centre overheads.

"The key" says Stephen, "is ensuring that you retain and recruit your best lawyers and back up staff.  Ralli are currently looking to recruit experienced lawyers into their specialist departments which paints a very different picture from the London scene".

The Sharp Legal survey, conducted by business research agency Acritas, estimates spending trends on legal services from major corporations. The survey predicts that City law firms are heading for a 17 per cent slump in demand for their services with regional firms expecting a 16 per cent increase.

Lisa Hart, chief executive of Acritas, said: "Companies are increasingly choosing regional firms over City firms for certain kinds of lower value legal work."

"This is mainly because of cost savings but also due to concerns that City firms may outsource lower value work, leading to a lower quality of end service."

Although some firms will weather the downturn better than others, the study of three hundred companies including Shell, Barclays and Reuters, warns of a difficult year for the legal industry as a whole. Total spending on legal services - which fell 6 per cent in February, 12 per cent in March and 17 per cent in April - is forecast to fall by 12 per cent over the next twelve months.

The falling demand comes at a time of renewed pressure on law firms to cut fees with many clients demanding frozen or discounted hourly rates, fixed fees and other measures including free training, access to their research and secondments of junior lawyers at a much reduced cost.

Figures show that 80 per cent of businesses are negotiating fees and using fixed fee arrangements. Firms are willing to offer this where the likelihood of negotiation is slim and for long-standing clients whose business they want to retain during the recession.

John Young, senior partner of Lovells, a City law firm, said clients worldwide had asked for fees to be frozen and other incentives to secure their continued custom. These include cheap – or sometimes free - secondees to help reduce the workload of in house legal departments, many of which are struggling to adapt following deep job cuts.

While the City and "magic circle" may lose domestic work to national or regional firms, they remain the top choice for international matters. Over half of companies forecast this demand to increase by between 11 and 25 per cent, making it the top source of revenue for lawyers.

Ms Hart said: "Businesses will shop around and bargain at home but they will continue to use City firms with international offices for foreign work because they want the reassurance of using a firm they know."

The hedging effect of their extensive international networks will help "magic circle" law firms through the downturn leaving City firms without a global presence the most exposed. China-related work will be the largest driver in the coming year followed by Russia and India, Sharp Legal said.

Mr Young said: "The demand for intellectual property services is proving to be the most reliable source of business in South East Asia. China is our biggest market but Vietnam, Singapore and Hong Kong are also booming. Russia is also a good source of work for corporate, financial and dispute resolution work."

Despite evidence of intense pressure on fees, average hourly rates at law firms increased by 3 per cent over the previous three months. This is despite 91 per cent of businesses believing law firms could improve their service with the biggest gripes concerning turnaround time and lack of communication.

Mark Briegal, Partner at Ralli, comments on the article: "We have picked up a number of jobs in the past few years from London based businesses. They realise that we can offer the same, if not better, service at a better cost as our overheads are lower outside of the square mile or the West End.

Most contact is by phone or e-mail and so we don't need to be in the same city.  In fact, we make a point of visiting our London clients a few times a year – it is only 2 hours by train. One client commented when I went to see them earlier this year that they had used a City firm for many years and they had never been to see them once!

There are certain very large, specialist cross border transactions that will require large firms, but the majority of corporate, commercial, employment, property and litigation work can be handled by a medium sized Manchester firm like Ralli.  When we get clients from London they tend to stick with us!"

Steve Kuncewicz, IP and Media Lawyer at Ralli also comments on the article: "This research just goes to show that companies recognize that, whilst City firms will always exert some degree of dominance over the legal landscape, especially in international matters, there is plenty of room for a more regional approach.

Many regional lawyers will have come from much larger practices looking for a different way of working outside of the old model for delivery of legal services, and many more have begun to recognise that the old model simply doesn't work as well as it used to.

Coming to a regional firm does not mean that a client has to sacrifice technical expertise or experience and more often than not a regional firm will be able to adopt a more bespoke approach to acting for them. We've seen a huge growth in our IP & Media practice based on this theory, which we fully expect to continue even after the end of the credit crunch."

Moving Forward- 3 new Partners and 2 Associates, Ralli look forward to the future

Charity begins at home- The Ralli Factor 50 Charity Ball and PR & Marketing Manager, Gill Nuttall

Employment rights & agency workers- The plight of the BMW workers

Personal Injury Success- James helps beaten father win compensation

Ask the expert- Deborah Rainford gives her advice on insolvency

Buyer Beware- Stuart Page discusses the potential dangers involved in the world of memrobilia

Spotlight- 5 minutes with Ralli Partner Victoria Johnson

Did you know?...

The 39-year-old worker, from South Shields, who doesn't want to be named, was hit on the head by welding equipment while painting a ship for A&P Falmouth in 2004. As a result of the accident, he can no longer work and now suffers from deafness.His balance has also been affected and he also suffers epilepsy and severe headaches.

His mother said: "This accident has had a huge impact on the whole family. My son's life has dramatically changed.

"He was a grown man, with a good, well-paid job, and his whole future was ahead of him. "He can no longer work. This money will help cover his daily living costs, now that he can no longer earn a wage."

The man was working on the Repubblica Di Roma cargo ship, at A&P Falmouth when the accident happened.He was wearing full safety equipment at the time, including a hard hat, which may have saved his life.

The case was settled out of court, with A&P Falmouth's insurers settling the the lion's share of the claim, with the settlement reflecting the fact he can no longer work and that his injury means he must rely on support from others for the rest of his life.

Mick Laffey, of Thompsons Solicitors, said: "This accident was caused by poor health and safety techniques and could have been avoided, had the necessary precautions been taken. As a result, our client's life has taken a dramatic turn for the worst.

"This compensation can never make up for the client's brain damage, or for the loss of the life he once led."It is aimed at helping our client maintain a standard of living, if not the same kind of life he would have expected, had he been able to work up to retirement age." Terry Kelly-Shields Gazzette

Jenny Stevenson, Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article: "accidents which occur in the workplace can frequently have very serious consequences.  Workers are often using heavy and dangerous machinery or are working near to colleagues using such equipment.

Without a full and proper consideration of health and safety issues, the risks of such injuries increases.  Although in this case, there were sufficient health and safety procedures in place to ensure the injured man was wearing a hard hat, which saved his life, obviously, the health and safety assessment had not gone far enough so as to implement procedures to prevent the accident occurring in the first place.

Many employers complain about the burden of health and safety requirements but these complaints should be weighed against the damage which can be done to a person. The gentleman injured in this case has had his whole life significantly altered for the worse.  He is no longer able to work, fully care for himself and he suffers numerous health problems and this is no doubt reflected in the large compensation payout he has received.

At Ralli, we assist many people who have been injured in accidents at work when the proper health and safety procedures have failed."

Icelandic Group UK – which operates the Coldwater factory, on Pyewipe Road – has been fined £3,500 and must pay court costs of £6,477 after Luke Oxton was injured in October 2007.

As reported, Mr Oxton, who was 19 at the time, was freed by firefighters after he was trapped in machinery for over an hour. He has not been returned to work since the incident on October 12, 2007.

The news came as the Grimsby Telegraph discovered North East Lincolnshire is in the bottom 25 per cent of the country when it comes to the amount of people that are injured at work. For every 100,000 employees in our area, a shocking 778.8 will be injured, leading to 2.8-million working days being lost due to injury or work-related ill health in the Yorkshire and Humber region in 2007/08.

In the same period, 16 local workers were killed at work.

In the case of Mr Oxton, Grimsby Magistrates were told that the company failed keep a guard on a vent – which prevented access to a dangerous rotating auger – in good working order. Mr Oxton was trapped while he was cleaning the vent.

The company was prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work Act and admitted breaching it's general duty to an employee. In a statement, Icelandic Group UK said: "Icelandic Group UK Limited is a local company for whom health and safety is the top priority. Our health and safety record at the Grimsby plant is excellent .

"We very much regret Mr Oxton's accident and are assisting him in his rehabilitation with the aim of returning him to employment at the earliest opportunity.

"As a responsible company we have learned lessons from this incident and implemented a major training programme for all employees and management to recognised national standards.

"We aim to provide local people with a safe working environment as part of our continuous improvement programme."

During 2007/08, the health and safety executive prosecuted 124 employers, securing convictions against 104. The average fine imposed was £5,942.

Local authorities brought 40 cases, all of which led to a successful convictions, with an average fine of £4,375. thisisgrimsby.co.uk

Tracey Horton, Personal Injury Solicitor at Ralli comments on the article:

"Whilst the above company was fined under the Health and Safety at Work Act, Mr Oxton would also have a civil claim against the company for the injuries received.

The claim would be governed by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations.

Employers have a duty to ensure that adequate guards are in place so that accidents are avoided. If the machines need to be cleaned then they need to ensure that the cleaning of the machines is allocated to specific people designated to undertake this task. They also have to be satisfied that the people using the machine have been fully trained on how to do the job safely and provide them with appropriate health and safety information and provide them with protective clothing to minimize the potential of any accident.

The fact that a major training programme was introduced by the company, post accident, and the fact that the company was fined in the first place suggests that these obligations were not fulfilled.

Mr Oxton suffered serious injuries in the accident. Not only does he have a right to be compensated for the actual injury he also needs to consider how the accident may effect his future work prospects. If Mr Oxton cannot return to his former job then he would have a claim for handicap on the labour market depending on his qualifications. The Court would need to decide how easy it will be for Mr Oxton to obtain alternative employment. This is often a difficult question to answer especially in the current economic climate.

Here at Ralli, we specialize in accidents at work and consider this question on most cases. Sometimes it is necessary to employ the services of an employment consultant who would have the necessary expertise to consider this question and prepare an expert report for the Court."