Author: Julie Gingell Could you dedicate just one office tea break to fundraising for a great charity? As close friends of the Willow Foundation , SA Law is helping to promote their latest national fundraising initiative. And the concept couldn’t be easier! Simply schedule an office tea break to raise money. Staff could be asked to make a small donation to attend; cakes and biscuits could be sold; or you could simply hold a raffle. You could even charge a fee for each tea bag - the more exotic the tea bag the higher the donation!
View original here:
Turn Tea Bags into Tenners!
Authors: Steve Kenneford & Caroline Beale There still appears to be confusion over the obligation to provide Home Information Packs since the announcement to suspend the same on the 21st May 2010. The situation is as follows:- Any/all properties marketed prior to the 21st May 2010 will require a fully compliant HIP. Any properties marketed after the 21st May 2010 will no longer require a HIP but will require an Energy Performance Certificate to be provided at the cost of the seller. The cost of the local authority and drainage searches will once again fall upon the Purchaser. So, effectively, with the exception of the EPC which is being retained, the last 4 years and probably the 3 before that (whilst we were all preparing ourselves for the new HIPS revolution) were a complete waste of time, effort, money and a further erosion of our already depleted rainforests in terms of the monumental waste of paper involved. Thanks for everything Yvette (Cooper)! It remains to be seen whether any further changes will be made and we will keep you advised.
The rest is here:
Life Without HIPS
Author: Chris Cook A recently published survey of UK workers in hygiene company SCA has uncovered that a fifth of the workforce will not take a day off work even when they are genuinely sick. It was also revealed that 26.2% will call in sick, but are nervous about doing this due to their line managers’ and colleagues’ reaction in the past when they were ill. This is likely to be typical of most businesses across the UK. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has suggested that in the current economic downturn, workers are more likely to wish to go to work when they are unwell. This is because of concern that their absence will be viewed as a lack of commitment to their job. However, it is important for workers who are genuinely unwell to consider the effect of coming into work on the rest of the workforce. This in turn is likely to be counterproductive for employers in spreading illness to other members of staff, in turn leading to a decline in performance of the business as a whole through its employees having difficulties concentrating, making mistakes and lowering the standard of its service to customers. Consequently managers are advised to be observant if an employee at work might be unwell, and if necessary tell them to go home to recuperate.
View original post here:
Fifth of workforce not taking time off when sick
Author: Nathanael Young News that the Sugababes’ founder member Mutya Buena has applied for a trademark in the word ‘Sugababes’ has already provoked considerable discussion. When their last original member left in 2009, the Sugababes reopened discussion of a paradox as old as philosophy: whether something could survive the replacement of all its component parts. But whatever the importance of the Sugababes’ band, it is now the Sugababes’ brand - the cornerstone of a multi-million pound business - that is at stake. The legal position between the parties remains to be seen; Buena clearly considers herself entitled to the mark as a founder member, but the suggestion from the current trio seems to be that Island Records have the rights in the name, although they have no trademark. This is not the first time different band members have struggled for control of a brand. In 2003 a case involving the heavy metal group Saxon went to the Court of Appeal, where it was held that, in the absence of a partnership agreement specifying otherwise, members of a band were members of a partnership at will, which was dissolved when they split up. The name and the goodwill built up under it belonged to the partnership jointly, and not to any one individual or individuals, whether or not they claimed to be surviving members. In that case the trademark application was refused, but it was one of the original members that objected to it. The legal issues in this case remain to be seen, but the practical issues are familiar to all intellectual property lawyers. Names - whether names of companies, names of bands or names of products - can become commercially important overnight. It is crucial that the ownership and registration of the intellectual property rights in names is given thought at the earliest possible stage. Otherwise issues can arise, often years after the name first comes to prominence. It is unlikely that we have seen the last of the Sugababes trademark application, and still more unlikely we have seen the last case of this type.
See more here:
Bands’ Brands - Music and the Law
Author: Gary Dunger I’m sure you have all been eagerly anticipating the report on the Willow Foundation 10K run and our runners’ performances! In very testing conditions everybody put in a very good performance and despite survival being the main aim, some very creditable times were put in, especially considering that by the end of the race the surface was becoming somewhat slippery (being partly run on grass) and into driving rain, wind and hail. A special mention must go to Nat Young whom it seems must have been training very hard over the last few months as he went off like the proverbial hare, only to be reeled in by Terence two-thirds of the way in with Terence coming in first of the SA Law runners. The finishing order on Sunday was: Terence Ritchie 46.36 Gary Dunger 47.03 Nat Young 47.06 Rob Ryall 52.12 Chris Alexander 57.54 Simon Walsh 58.23 Tracy Lacey-Smith 59.09 Nikki Petken 65.36 I am sure you will all join me in congratulating all those who participated, and many of whom are no doubt now saying “never again” after the experience. For a full (humorous) account by another participant of the challenges yesterday see the RunningAmok blog . And it is not too late of course to sponsor the team, visit www.justgiving.com/SALaw , it would be great to reach £1000!
Go here to read the rest:
The Willow Foundation - 10K Run
Author: Helen Duffy Whilst reading the Sunday Times on the weekend I came across an article reminding me of the dangers of Facebook. According to the article, someone referred to as ‘Lindsay’ forgot that her boss was a ‘friend’ of hers on Facebook when she wrote “I HATE MY JOB - my boss is a total pervvy ****er. Always making me do stuff just to **ss me off!” So later that day her boss responded to her comment on Facebook, reminding her that she was still on her six month probationary period and told her not to bother going into the office the following day. Whilst this is a sobering reminder of the risks of Facebook, employers should also be careful about conducting their disciplinary procedures through such means. It seems in this case that ‘Lindsay’ was still within her first year of employment, but had she been employed for longer, this kind of response from her employer could have landed him in an employment tribunal.
View post:
Facing the Music on Facebook
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
As The Spectator guy said… The Prime Minister seems to be indestructible… for the present…. From the BBC: “ 1803 The Spectator’s political editor, Fraser Nelson, says that for Mr Brown to survive cabinet unrest, backbench plots, an economy in recession and abysmal election results, he must be a “Terminator prime minister. It seems like nothing can kill him.”
Read more from the original source:
The Prime Terminator is back!…
GuidoFawkes reports that there were cheers in dealing rooms throughout the City today at the rumour that Brown had resigned… the rumours were false and Downing Street had to put out a statement that the Prime Minister was ‘getting on with the job’. Cabinet shuffle coming… will anyone want to be in it?.. and how long can Brown last? Friday? Sunday night / Monday morning?
Read more:
Dealing room cheers at Brown going… but false rumour!…
4th June: News up on Insite Law
Excerpt from:
4th June: News up on Insite Law
