Aaron & Partners has acquired niche employment firm Bennett’s Legal in Shrewsbury as part of an ongoing expansion strategy.

The acquisition will be rebranded Aaron & Partners and become the firm’s third office after Chester and Manchester.  The new owner expects the Shrewsbury office to be generating fees of more than £1m a year within the next three years.

Aaron & Partners chief executive, Andy Duxbury, said:  “This acquisition will give us a presence in Shrewsbury where our client base has been growing for some time. In addition it provides us with a platform to expand into new markets and deliver specialist legal services across Shropshire.

“Several of the most senior Aaron & Partners staff are already known in the area and can now make use of the Shrewsbury office to further develop the great connections we have. Above all, though, we want to grow the office by means of local recruitment of specialists in our key market sectors.”

All Bennett’s Legal staff will join Aaron & Partners.  They include managing director, Paul Bennett, a specialist in employment and regulatory law, who founded the practice in 2009.  He will join as a partner when the purchase takes effect on 16 May.

Paul said:  “The experience of setting up and running my own business has been invaluable in helping me understand the needs and challenges of my clients, many of whom are of course business owners themselves.  By joining Aaron & Partners I can now offer my clients a broader range of legal services, while still helping to develop a practice here in Shrewsbury.”

Aaron & Partners, which employs 102 people, has a strong client base among owner-managed businesses and SMEs.

In 2012, it won more plaudits than any of its Chester-based rivals in the highly regarded Legal 500 directory for the third year running and received top reviews in the prestigious Chambers UK 2013 rankings.

For more details please contact Marketing Manager Scott Hadden at scott.hadden@aaronandpartners.com or call 01244 405569.

Where there are no express restrictive covenants in the sale and purchase agreement that prevent the seller from setting up a new business in competition, the courts will imply certain restrictions on the seller, for example, the seller will not solicit the business of his former customers, use the business secrets of the sold business or hold himself out to be part of the sold business.

However, this protection for the buyer is limited. The buyer of a new business should always ensure that the sale and purchase agreement contains reasonable restrictive covenants that prevent the seller from soliciting existing customers or suppliers from the sold business, soliciting and employing existing employees from the sold business, disclosing or using the sold business’ trade secrets and competing generally with the sold business for a specified period within a specified area.

Restrictive covenants must be reasonable in the interests of the parties and in the public interest and go no further than is necessary to protect the buyer’s legitimate business interests, otherwise they may be unenforceable. In assessing what is reasonable, the parties should consider the duration of the restriction, its geographical reach and the scope of the activities which are covered by it.

The validity of a restrictive covenant will be determined as at the date at which the agreement containing it was entered into and the onus of showing that the covenant is reasonable lies on the party seeking to rely upon it.

For more information on this or any other area of company law, please contact Clare Gray on 01244 405545 or email clare.gray@aaronandpartners.com.

Aaron & Partners LLP say that companies without an effective ‘bring your own device’ to work (BYOD) policy could be risking their IT resources, communication systems and ultimately, the good reputation of their business.

The Chester-based law firm is now providing its own BYOD policy to meet the demands of an increasing number of clients that have experienced problems caused by a rise in employees using their own devices for work.

With the soaring popularity of personal mobile devices and more and more people working flexibly and from home, Aaron & Partners warn that boundaries between home and work are becoming increasingly blurred, saying it is essential that companies have provision in place to ensure its systems are protected.

A recent survey commissioned by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) revealed that 47% of all UK adults now use their personal smart phone, laptop or tablet computer for work purposes.
The ICO has now published new guidance which explains what employers need to consider if permitting the use of personal devices to process personal data for work purposes.

Problems can include the loss or theft of employees’ smart phones or tablets that contain confidential work.

Companies can also be at risk from a disgruntled employee who could use their work email to send out malicious or damaging messages or a worker who may inadvertently introduce a virus on to their employer’s IT system.

Helen Watson, Head of Employment at Aaron & Partners, who is leading on the firm’s BYOD policy, said: “This policy is aimed at employers who wish to allow their employees to use their own smart phones, tablets or other mobile devices for work, either while at the office, remotely or during non-working hours.
“It applies to private workplaces in the UK and deals with such issues as monitoring, privacy, security and cost.
“It is really important that companies consider having a policy as this is an issue that is not going to go away.”

The policy costs £149 plus VAT and is available from Helen Watson who can be contacted on 01244 405565 or Helen.watson@aaronandpartners.com

Ms Doogan and Mrs Wood challenged the fact that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde required them to delegate, supervise and support staff involved in carrying out abortions. They claimed that their conscientious objection extended to the whole of their duties (save for their legal duty to carry out treatment necessary to save life or to prevent grave permanent injury) and that it applied to the whole team whose involvement was necessary during the abortion procedure.

Following a judicial review last year, the Court of Session however ruled that their human rights had not been violated as they were not directly involved in the terminations. Lady Smith held “they are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as, it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for and accommodation of their beliefs”. The midwives appealed this decision and their appeal has been upheld. The ruling, published on Wednesday by the appeal judges said, “in our view the right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose”.

This case could have a real impact on employers in terms of the potential for claims to be brought on the grounds of religious belief discrimination.

For further information or advice in relation to dealing with discrimination claims and managing religious beliefs within your organisation, please contact Helen Watson on 01244 405565 or send an email to helen.watson@aaronandpartners.com.

The free event is being hosted by industrial recruitment specialist gap personnel in partnership with Aaron & Partners.  Partner & head of employment at Aaron & Partners, Helen Watson, is guest speaker at the event and will give an overview of the hot topics in human resources, including:

• Pensions auto-enrolment legislation
• Agency Worker Regulations (AWR) 18 months on
• Protected conversations, settlement agreements and other topical legislative changes

Helen will also discuss recent employment tribunal cases, and there will be the opportunity to ask questions.

The event begins at 12.00 with a two-course buffet lunch, allowing attendees to network with other business leaders from across the region.

gap personnel, one of the UK’s 10 largest industrial labour providers, places and payrolls 7,000 workers a week and last year provided staffing solutions to 1,200 clients.

Within Yorkshire, the company has high-street branches in Leeds, Sheffield and Castleford and a network of on-site operations at large manufacturing firms.

gap supplies temporary workers to some of Yorkshire’s biggest manufacturing, food production, packaging, recycling and waste management firms.

The company’s specialist driving division, Driving Force, has a hub in Wakefield and works with haulage and logistics firms.

Sheffield resident Matthew Hull, operations director (east UK) at gap personnel, said: “This seminar is aimed at business owners, HR directors, HR managers, and anyone who is involved in managing a workforce.

“Employment law is a fast moving area, and there is always a new piece of legislation just around the corner.

“Even the most diligent managing director or HR professional can sometimes struggle to stay up to date with legislative changes and landmark tribunal cases.

“This seminar will offer delegates a concise overview of the current employment law landscape, and also give them an opportunity to meet up with like-minded professionals.”

There is no charge for the event, but early booking is recommended as places are limited.

To reserve your place call Paul Illingworth, manager of gap’s Leeds branch, on 0113 204 8585 or email paul.illingworth@gap-personnel.com with your name, company details and a contact telephone number.

The Law Commission, being the body charged with keeping the law under review and recommending reform where it is needed, has suggested changes to give certainty in the law.

What is a right to light?

A “right to light” is a type of property right known as an easement.  Such right entitles a landowner to receive enough natural light passing over a neighbour’s land to enable the ordinary use of the landowner’s building.  The neighbour’s land th cannot substantially interfere with such right, for example by erecting a building in a way that blocks the light, without the consent of the landowner.

Rights to light are valuable as they give landowners certainty that natural light will continue to be enjoyed by the property increasing its utility, value and amenity. Landowners may be able to prevent (or in some instances require the demolition or cutting back of) construction that would interfere with their rights.  Where development has taken place but the court does not order its demolition, the court may award substantial damages.  It may not be clear which remedy the court will order and landowners may succeed in preventing development even if they raise the issue after building has commenced.

Following the Law Commission’s Easements project in 2011 it became clear further work was needed separately on rights to light.   A new consultation on Rights to Light has opened from 18 February 2013 to 16 May 2013.

Following the close of the consultation, there will be a period of review.  If the project proceeds, the Law Commission aim to publish a final report and draft bill in late 2014 or early 2015.

The consultation will be of particular interest to landowners, developers and property lawyers seeking to defend right to light claims especially following the decision in HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney (2010) ( the “Heaney decision”).

In the “Heaney decision”, the High Court granted an injunction requiring partial demolition of a completed building which obstructed a landowner’s right to light.  Before this decision it had been thought it would be difficult to obtain an injunction in such circumstances and that damages would be awarded instead.

Commentators say this case has had a detrimental effect on the ability of rights to light disputes to be resolved swiftly and amicably.  Some feel that a neighbouring owner (or developer) who is proactively trying to negotiate a resolution would be frustrated by a neighbour who will not engage in order to try and increase the sum they can demand for damages.  Due to this  uncertainty as to exactly when a court will grant an injunction, the “Heaney decision” makes it very difficult for advisers to establish the likelihood of any threat being successful.

The Law Commission is not proposing to abolish rights to light altogether but instead to seek a fair balance between the interests of landowners and the needs of neighbouring owner (or developers) seeking to build.  The project looks at the entire life cycle of a right to light from creation to extinguishment in relation to private law easements only.  No proposals are made in respect of the interrelationship of rights to light with planning laws.  It examines the remedies available to the courts and whether these are reasonable, sufficient and proportionate.

The three key objectives of the Right to Lights project are:

1. To attempt to introduce greater certainty and transparency into rights of light law making disputes simpler, easier and quicker to resolve.
2. To ensure rights to light do not act as an unnecessary constraint on development.  The availability of modern, good quality residential, office and commercial space is important to the success of modern town and city centres and to the economy more generally.
3. To make sure the important amenity value of rights to light remain protected under the law.

The consultation paper therefore makes several provisional proposals:

1. It should no longer be possible to acquire rights to light by 20 years long user known as “prescription”.
2. The introduction of a new statutory test to clarify the current law on when the courts may order a person to pay damages instead of ordering an injunction to demolish to stop constructing a building that interferes with a right to light.
3. Introduction of a new statutory notice procedurewhich would require landowners to make it clear whether they intend to apply to the court for an injunction.
4. That the courts should be able to extinguish rights to light that are obsolete or have no practical benefit, with payment of appropriate of compensation.

No future acquisition of rights to light by long use

Although rights to light can be created by express agreement between landowners, by implication or through long use /”prescription”, it is only those acquired by long use/”prescription” that raises issues about law reform.

The Law Commission is proposing to abolish the ability to acquire rights to light by long use /”prescription”.  It would have no impact on rights already acquired by prescription and they would continue to be valid.

Transitional provisions are also proposed for those people who have  received light over neighbouring land for 19 years and 1 day. They will be able to complete their full 20 years use and crystallise their rights to light under the Prescription Act 1832, provided they bring their claim on the correct day.

The number of rights to light, due largely to the ease by which they can be acquired, can considerably increase the costs of developing land and delay the delivery of projects.  As we have seen, the threat of injunction or high levels of damages payments can also considerably raise the risks associated with developments.  This creates difficulties in financing and pre-letting of buildings.  It increases the costs of development and causes deadlines to be missed.

In many cases neighbouring owners and land owners will be unaware of their existence.   There will have been no activity on the neighbouring land affecting the right and the landowner’s right to light will rarely have been registered.

• Neighbouring owners are unlikely to be aware of the landowner’s ability to acquirea legal right to light if the landowner’s receives light from the neighbouring owner’s land for 20 years.  .  A landowner’s property may benefit from rights to light against neighbours to the North and West but not to the South or East.
• Those with the benefit of a right to light will often agree to release it for a substantial amount of money, which is not protecting the light but instead has become a tool to extract money for neighbours proposing to develop their land.

A right to light will not be acquired through long use / “prescription” if it is obstructed for one year continuously.   The Rights to Light Act 1959 provides a method of creating a notional obstruction by service of a notice and registration of a local land charge which would show up on a local search.

The Rights to Light Act 1959 would become redundant as there would no be longer a role for light obstruction notices.  This would be repealed once the ability to acquire rights to light through long use / “prescription” was abolished.

If the ability to acquire rights to light through long use / “prescription” is not abolished,  the Rights to Light Act 1959 should not be repealed as it serves a useful function by providing a means of interrupting the acquisition of an easement without having to erect a physical obstruction.  However, the procedural requirements for the service and registration of light obstruction notices can be unnecessarily cumbersome and views are sought on reform and simplification of the requirement.

A statutory test for when a court may award damages instead of an injunction

The principal remedies for the infringement of rights to light are injunctions and damages

Injunctions

The general rule is that the remedy for the infringement of a right to light is an injunction.  The claimant does not have the right to an injunction.  As it is an equitable remedy,  it is within the discretion of the court whether or not to grant one.  If  damages would be an adequate remedy, the court may not award an injunction.

Shelfer v City of London Electric Light Company (1895) (“Shelfer”) remains the leading case to be applied by the courts when deciding whether to award damages in substitution for an injunction.  Shelfer The ” Shelfer” test is currently geared towards assessing whether it would be oppressive for the court to grant an injunction.

The Law Commission provisionally proposes that damages be awarded in substitution for an injunction in rights of light cases if the grant of an injunction would be disproportionate.  The factors to be considered are:

• The size of the injury in terms of loss of amenity;
• Whether a monetary payment will be adequate;
• The conduct of the landowner;
• Whether the landowner unreasonably delayed in bringing proceedings; and
• The conduct of the neighbouring owner.

Damages

At common law,  damages that a landowner may recover must be equivalent to the losses that has actually been suffered.  Save for one exception, the heads of damages for the infringement of a right to light are:

• physical damage or financial loss suffered;
• loss of amenity; and
• diminution in value of the claimant’s property.

The exception to the general rule is damages for the loss of bargaining power.

The problem with common law damages is that they can only be awarded in respect of losses suffered up to the date of trial.

However, equitable damages may be awarded instead of an injunction.  When assessing damages the courts can take account of the estimated profits the proposed development would make and are usually more generous than the amount of actual loss suffered.

The Law Commission proposes reform of the assessment method of equitable damages and a cap of damages awarded.  One option on the cap of equitable damages would be for it to be limited to the open market value of the landowner’s property without regard to ransom potential.  This could avoid extremely high awards of damages being made but it would also be susceptible to fluctuations in the value of land.

The Law Commission have therefore considered a number of possible options for reform of how equitable damages are assessed including:

• A greater role for comparable transactions,
• Changing the measure of equitable damages to diminution in value (plus damages for loss of amenity and for any financial losses suffered due to the infringement) and
• The addition of a statutory uplift to be applied to the diminution in value figure.

The introduction of a new statutory notice procedure

As the “Heaney decision” highlights, where extensive negotiations carried on without conclusion for several years, there is no point in time at which a developer can build safely in the knowledge that no injunction will be granted because of delay.  A new Notice of Proposed Obstruction (“NPO”) procedure is therefore planned to address this issue.

Whilst rights to light are an important and valuable way of preserving the light received by properties, they can be used as a means of extracting money from property developers.  The threat of an injunction can be deployed to extract payments that are out of proportion to any loss suffered.

Neighbouring owners / developers require certainty as  projects are time sensitive.  It is in the landowner’s interest to draw out the negotiations for as long as possible to  increase the price the neighbouring owner /developer is willing to pay to secure release of the right.

Whilst developments facilitate growth , increased costs may be passed on by the developers. This impacts on public projects and rents  and the advantages of regeneration are postponed.  Uncertainties in timing can result in difficulties with pre-letting and securing funding.

A notice procedure is proposed to require the landowner to make it clear if they want an injunction.  Such procedure would be used as a last resort following the failure of .

The form and content of the notices

Draft clauses can be found in Appendix C of the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper which cover the main substance of the procedure.  Issues such as service of the notice or costs are not dealt with.  The form and content of the “NPO” has been designed to be easily updated.

The neighbouring owner / developer (as a corporate body or natural person) with an interest in the freehold or leasehold land would serve on the landowner a ”NPO”  setting out information about the extent of the anticipated obstruction and asking if the landowner proposed to seek an injunction.

The landowner has 4 months to seek professional advice.   The landowner is  obliged to either serve a counter-notice specifying whether or not they objected to the development or issue proceedings.  If a counter-notice objecting was served then the parties would continue negotiating for a further 4 months to.  If no agreement has been reached then the landowner must issue proceedings before the end of this period.    At the same time they would also need to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules relating to pre-action conduct before issuing the claim.  If the landowner failed to object by either serving a counter-notice or issuing proceedings, then an injunction would no longer be an available remedy, although they still could be awarded damages.

The rules governing service of the notice

The Law Commission envisage the rules governing service of the “NPO” be based on the current general provisions on service of notice contained in Part 6 Civil Procedure Rules and the s6 Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (used in compulsory purchase cases).

The third party effect of the notice

The “NPO” will be addressed to someone with a freehold or leasehold estate in land and take effect against the estate rather than be personal to the addressee so that the addressee cannot avoid its effects by a selling off the land.  It is therefore proposed that registration of the notice is made on the local land charge register.  The local land charge register is maintained by local authorities and it is always searched by a purchaser’s conveyancer as part of their pre-contract investigations of title.  Once registered as a local land charge, the “NPO” will be effective against all successors in title including a mortgagee.

Multiple notice and shelf life and costs recovery

Two problems need to be avoided.  The service of multiple notices and notices served in the past being used many years in the future.  It is proposed there should only be one “NPO” issued at any time with a validity period of 5 years covering building plans before commencement or during the course of building works.  If the obstruction resulted in a lesser infringement, the “NPO” would remain valid.  If the neighbouring owner’s / developer’s plans change and resulted in a greater infringement the “NPO” would no longer be valid meaning a neighbouring owner / developer will never serve a “NPO” on a whim.

As to costs, the neighbouring owner / developer should be under a continuing obligation to inform the landowner of changes to its plans.   Any failure to do so would be taken   into account by the courts when assessing costs and the court should be given wide discretion to make any order as to costs as it thinks fit.

Residential property landowners are more likely than commercial landowners to want to keep their light rather than negotiate a release of their right, so the Law Commission is also seeking views restricting the use of the “NPO” procedure to  commercial properties only.

Extending the jurisdiction of the court – the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) of the

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decides certain disputes concerning land.  The Law Commission proposes that it has an increased role in disputes about whether rights to lights have been abandoned.

To recap the legal position, rights to Light can be brought to an end:

• Where the landowner and the neighbouring owner agree it should happen;
• By unity of ownership and possession of both the landowner’s property and the neighbouring property;
• Where a right to light is abandoned; or
• Where statutory powers are used.

It is only the third of these points that raise issues for reform.

Abandonment – options on law reform

Non-use of a right to light is a positive action so it is easier to infer an intention to abandon a right of light permanently than other easements.

Where windows are bricked up there is no difficulty in a court inferring the necessary intention to abandon the right to light permanently, and the longer windows are obscured the more likely it is that this will be the conclusion.

However, the issue is slightly more complex where a property is demolished but not rebuilt.  The key factor is whether there was an intention to abandon the right.  In situations where the property is demolished and rebuilt with the windows in different positions, the law can be more difficult to apply.  Problems also arise where windows are altered in size.  The consequence of an alteration may be that a right to light is abandoned but it is clear that rights to light are capable of surviving alteration.  A right to light is not abandoned simply because the property is demolished and built with new windows provided light is received through a proportion of the new window.

The legal test for when a right to light can survive the alteration of a window  is conceptually simple but practically complex and the courts have made it clear in several cases that the right to light will survive the alteration of an aperture.

The possibilities for reform in this area of law include:

• A prohibition on a right to light surviving the alteration of a window;
• A revised test for establishing when a right to light survives the alteration of a window;
• The introduction of a registration requirement.

Extinguishment by s237 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA”)

Section 237 of the TCPA 1990 is a planning law power that allows the overriding of easements and other interests that affect land in certain circumstances.  It is exercisable by local authorities where they have acquired or appropriated land for planning purposes.  Where s237 take effect an easement is no longer exercisable and the landowner has a right to compensation.

The operation of s237 is outside the scope of the right to light project.  However, it is a useful mechanism to manage some of the problems associated with rights to light in limited circumstances if a  private developer can get  the local authority involved They cannot be compelled to exercise the power.  It is subject to conditions and considerations that are related to the local authority’s public function and it is likely to be use only in respect of a small number of developments mainly because the development site is likely to be owned by a third party developer.

Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) – discharge and modification grounds

Once the recommendations made in the Law Commission’s Easement Report are implemented, all easements, including rights to light, will be capable of modification or discharge by the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunals pursuant to Section 84 LPA 1925.

Here is an overview of what is required for a discharge and modification under s84 LPA 1925 (“s84”)

• First . a change in character of the property so that the right to light has no practical use i.e. a bricked up window ought to be obsolete.
• Secondly . the continued existence of the restriction impedes reasonable use of the land.  Removal seeks to provide a fair balance between the needs of public and private development in the area and the protection of private contractual rights.
• Thirdly, all persons entitled to the benefit of the restriction agree expressly or impliedly by their acts or omissions to the discharge or modification.
• Fourthly,  the proposed discharge or modification will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restriction.  It is currently used to stop vexatious or frivolous objections to applications to discharge or modify restrictive covenants.

No proposal is made to change compensation awarded under “s84”  which provides for either (i) a sum to make up for loss or disadvantage suffered by that person in consequence of the discharge or modification; or (ii) a sum to make up for any effect which the restriction had at the time when it was imposed in reducing the consideration then received for the land affected by it.

European Convention on Human Rights

If an application following implementation of the proposed change to “s84” is successful and the easement is to be discharged or modified, as a result two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECtHR”) may arise in the proceedings.

Article 1 of the First Protocol (“A1P1”) of the convention is regarded by “ECtHR” as encompassing three rules

1. General principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions;
2. Rule about deprivation of possession; and
3. Rule about control of use.

It is the Law Commission’s view that modification or discharge of an easement under “s84” would therefore be compatible with “A1P1”.  This is because the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) will not make an order discharging or modifying a right unless there is either loss of amenity or the loss has been subjected to the careful balancing against the public interest that the convention requires and is likely to order compensation.

Article 8 of the convention provides the right to respect for the home, although home has been given a broad interpretation to include holiday homes and business premises.

In the Law Commission’s view, the assessment performed by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) when considering the grounds in “s84” ensure compliance with Article 8.  A right would only be discharged or modified under “s84” if it was obsolete, caused no injury or impeded the reasonable use of the land conducting a balancing exercise to weight the public interest against the individual interest.

The Law Commission therefore propose that the powers of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) should be extended to enable it to make orders for the modification or discharge of existing rights to light.

So, overall, whilst some may welcome the suggested changes, it remains to be seen if these proposals ever see the light of day!

JOIN IN THE DEBATE

Details of the Law Commission consultation can be found HERE

For further information please contact:

Emma McGlinchey, Partner, on 01244 405567 or email emma.mcglinchey@aaronandpartners.com; or

Stephanie Brayshay, Paralegal, on 01244  405417 or email stephanie.brayshay@aaronandpartners.com

Helen, who heads up the Employment Law department, plays a key role in the management of Aaron & Partners, Chester’s largest firm of solicitors, as she studies for a Ph.D in Employment Law with a particular specialism in discrimination at Glyndwr University, Wrexham.

She is also current Chair of North Wales Institute of Directors and the Vice Chair of the Trustees of Claire House Children’s Hospice and it is Helen’s numerous business achievements that have been recognised by the Chester Woman in Business nomination.

Helen is also delighted to have been nominated for the Chester Woman in Charity award after her continued and tireless fundraising for Wirral-based charity Claire House.

Helen’s extensive charity work has seen her organise and participate in many events, including the Aaron & Partners Masquerade Ball; a 350km cycle ride in five days across rugged terrain in India as well as participation in various half marathons and the London marathon.

Helen’s endeavours have raised tens of thousands of pounds for her charities and she succeeds in these pursuits whilst being a single parent to her seven-year-old son.

To continue her good work, Helen is entering the London to Paris Bike Ride in July this year and will be cycling across Cuba in May 2014 to raise money for both Claire House and Women v Cancer.

Helen says of her achievements, “It is wonderful to be acknowledged for the hard work I put into my professional career as well as for the fundraising I do to raise awareness and much needed money for these wonderful charities.

“It is the support and encouragement of my colleagues at Aaron & Partners that makes it possible for me to achieve the success I do professionally and to carry out the charitable work. Without their support I would not be able to undertake the challenges I do.”

Helen will find out, along with the other finalists, who the successful winners are at the awards ceremony luncheon at the prestigious Bolesworth Classic on 30th May.

To view Helen’s profile please click here

The ICO’s own website has now adopted such a policy.

What is essential is that the website operator is satisfied that the users of its website understand that their actions will result in a cookie being set.

The ICO can fine website operators which fail to implement a cookie policy that is compliant with the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 up to £500,000.

For more information on IT please contact Adam Kerr on 01244 405508 or email adam.kerr@aaronandpartners.com

It is considered that changes need to be made for the benefit of creative industries, in which the UK has a significant global presence.

The changes are expected to include the allowance of private copying, copying for data analytics purposes for non-commercial research and simplified rules relating to educational use of copyright material.

The Intellectual Property Office will be involved through the introduction of a system of ‘copyright notices’ and a simplified procedure for bringing complaints relating to breaches of copyright.

Secondary legislation to introduce the changes is scheduled to be introduced later this year.

To view the consultation paper click here

For advice on trade marks and protection of intellectual property generally, contact Adam Kerr, Partner, on 01244 405508 or email adam.kerr@aaronandpartners.com.

After winning the show Ms English joined Lord Sugar’s IT division, Viglen, but resigned in May 2011 complaining her job was just a “PR construct” and a “sham.” Ms English claimed she then felt pressured to take up a role at Lord Sugar’s internet set-top company You View. Ms English told the Tribunal that during an impromptu meeting in September 2011 Lord Sugar had told her that her contract would not be renewed and that he “did not give a ****.” Lord Sugar claimed that he was in fact referring to the way this might be portrayed in the media. Judge John Warren held that Lord Sugar had actually gone out of his way to ensure that Ms English was given a role at You View which she had agreed to, enjoyed doing, and from which she could learn new skills.

The Employment Tribunal ruled that Ms English’s case should “never have been brought.” The Tribunal said that she had the wrong idea about how glamorous the job would be and had resigned from the position rather than been unfairly constructively dismissed. Lord Sugar, speaking after the hearing, said that the case brought by Ms English had been a “charade.” He went on to say “what has happened here is representative of a new wave of claim culture where some employees file spurious actions regardless of whose reputation it may smear in the process.” Lord Sugar later tweeted “a victory for the law against the claim culture.”

For further information or advice in relation to dealing with claims of unfair constructive dismissal, please contact Claire Brook on 01244 405575 or send an email to claire.brook@aaronandpartners.com.

To book on to our Mock Employment Tribunal or one of our Employment Law Update seminars, please click here