Author: Guy Thomas There were six winding up petitions for football clubs in the High Court today. Two of them relate to Portsmouth! Hinckley United Football Club      Brighton Football Club Portsmouth City Football Club       Portsmouth City Football Club  (again!)     Southend United Football Club      Cardiff City Football Club       Cardiff & Southend have won a temporary reprise but Portsmouth’s problems have if anything intensified. Click here to view the article that appeared on the BBC website. I understand that Portsmouth have been asked to provide a ‘statement of affairs’ within the next week. Such a statement is drawn up by a specialist insolvency practitioner and will be very difficult to produce in such a short space of time, if that is the case the club looks set for administration. Given the minimum 10 point penalty that the Premier League may impose, it is highly likely that the club will , in the future, be preparing its finances on the basis it will be in the Championship next season. The statement of affairs will likely be made on the basis that Portsmouth is shortly going to be a Championship rather than Premier League club. Leeds, of all clubs, is actually a positive example for Portsmouth as they have managed to reduce long term overheads, such as player wages, and operate well as League One rather than Premier League club. Things may get worse before they get better, but the silver lining is that Portsmouth, like Leeds, has a large fan-base which virtually guarantees revenue over the next few years, and should enable them to bounce back. Depending on how things play out in the next couple of weeks in the Courts, next season looks likely to see a resurgent Leeds and a under pressure Portsmouth as competitors in the Championship seeking a return to top flight football. If HMRC is to maintain its new hard-line approach Portsmouth will not be the last Premiership club visiting the High Court in 2010. For too long, top flight clubs and their owners have been able to palm off their smaller and unsecured creditors but it looks like that is changing. The problem for clubs is that as soon as one creditor starts insolvency proceedings, as HMRC is, all the others, for example other clubs owed transfer fees, will follow suit. Many recent football insolvency (and near misses) in the lower leagues have been prompted by this change in stance by HMRC.

See original here: 
Six of the Best

Author: Laura Allen Diageo is in the process of taking legal action against Sainsbury’s for selling it’s own version of the gin-based drink called Pitcher’s. Sainsbury’s released Pitcher’s back in April this year stating that it was available in time for events such as Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon. Sainsbury’s has also advertised Pitcher’s as being cheaper than the branded equivalent, as well as saying that it has performed better in taste tests. Trademark experts say that Diageo is likely to be concerned that Sainsbury’s will be passing off the ‘copy’ drink as Pimm’s, as they have recently spent millions of pounds advertising their product using the catchphrase “it’s Pimm’s o’clock”. Comparisons can be drawn between the packaging of the two drinks, with both using red lettering in similar fonts, with a gold logo at the top of the label. This is not the first time that such matters have reached the courts, in 1997 Asda was found guilty of passing off its Puffin bars as United Biscuit’s Penguin biscuits. Brand owners will now be watching this matter carefully as it may encourage them to come forward if other retailers have ‘copycat’ items on their shelves. Diageo has admitted that it is taking legal proceedings in relation to an intellectual property matter, with Sainsbury’s saying that it will defend itself ‘vigorously’ against the allegations.

Read the rest here:
Protect your brand - Diageo and Sainsbury’s in legal battle over alleged copy of Pimm’s drink

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK

Author: Terrence Trainor In a recent High Court decision a wife was successful in convincing a panel of three High Court Judges to increase maintenance of £113,000 per annum (this being a global sum for the wife and children) to £195,000 per annum. In this instance, the wife was successful in increasing her maintenance substantially in light of the husband’s increase in wealth combined with his income increasing significantly from £552,000 gross per annum to £1.86 million gross per annum in the same period.  Importantly, the Court concluded the increase in income for the husband appeared secure and was likely to continue into the foreseeable future.  It therefore raises the question as to whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion if they felt the husband’s future income was susceptible to risk. Lord Justice Thorpe said the most important factor was the “husband’s greatly increased income” in finding that the original sum awarded had in fact been too small.  Interestingly, the Court was of the view the wife had a responsibility to operate a prudent economy with her finances and she must also anticipate a possible future fall in maintenance if the husband’s career was to faultier in the future. This case raises interesting questions and it would seem in the current economic climate with incomes falling or staying stagnant it will continue to fuel the number of applications being made to the Court to re-consider the issue of maintenance.

The rest is here:
Wife Awarded Greater Share of Husbands Future Income

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation Claims UK

Author: Marilyn Bell On 27 April this year the family court doors were opened. Some would say this was just by a crack because of the reporting restrictions. The Justice Secretary Jack Straw is now proposing to improve the transparency of the family court  by relaxing the reporting restrictions.    So far so good but where will this take us. Cases involving children are some of the most sensitive.  There are two main kinds of proceedings involving children:  Private law proceedings involve disputes, usually between the parents, as to where the children shall live and how much contact they shall have with the non resident parent. Understandably pressure has come from Fathers who feel they have been denied contact with their children and opening up the family court is welcomed as long as the anonymity of the children can be assured. Public law proceedings usually involve children being removed from their parents and taken into the care of the local authority. Ultimately the children may return to their parents, or be fostered, or adopted. The media can now attend Court and hear the evidence. However, they are already realising that the main body of the evidence is contained in the detailed documentation usually running to many lever arch folders. How is this to be approached in the light of greater transparency? Reporters are already suggesting they should be able to read the experts reports, but the experts reports refer to the documents the experts has relied on. Should all these documents therefore be available? Parents may disagree with the experts, if so, should the media therefore have the parents statements as well?         These are just some of the questions that will have to be taken into consideration.

Go here to read the rest: 
Opening up our family courts

Author: Andrew Nellist Following the untimely death of Michael Jackson it emerged that he had, in his Will, nominated his mother as guardian for his children. In the event that his mother had predeceased him Diana Ross was nominated in her place. In England and Wales the appointment of Guardians and the rights they have are governed by Section 5 of the Children Act 1989.  A parent with Parental Responsibility may appoint a Guardian by Will or by a document which they date and sign and which provides that the appointment only takes effect on their death. A child’s mother acquires Parental Responsibility on the birth of their child which can only be removed in specific circumstances for example if the child is adopted. The husband of the mother at the time of the child’s birth automatically acquires Parental Responsibility as does a father named on a birth certificate after 1st December 2003. This applies even in situations where the child was born as a result of Artificial Insemination by a Donor (AID). The appointment of a Guardian under a Will only takes effect if:- (i) The Appointer has a sole residence order in their favour at the time of their death; or (ii) No parent with parental responsibility survived the Appointer. Even if these conditions are not fulfilled the Appointee will have parental responsibility by virtue of the nomination under the Will and will be entitled to apply to the Court to be appointed as the Guardian.  Where there was a sole Residence Order in favour of the Appointer at the time of their death and there is a surviving parent who either does nor does not have parental responsibility that person can seek to have the appointment of the Guardian revoked. Thus had Michael Jackson and his children been resident in England at the time of his death then unless there was a sole Residence Order in his favour at the time of his death his mother would have to have made an application to the Court to be appointed Guardian of his children.  In the absence of such an application the children would have to be returned to their mothers to care for them provided that they as surviving parents still had parental responsibility.

See more here:
Michael Jackson names his Mother as his children’s guardian in his Will - but what is the law regarding guardianship and parental responsibility…