Author: Aston Bond Law Firm

When is a disfigurement ‘severe’ under the Equality Act 2010?

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Disability-symbols editedDisability discrimination is a serious offence, under the Equality Act 2010 and can lead to an uncapped amount of compensation if proven. The Act covers discrimination based on an individual’s severe disfigurement, but many people are unsure as to what exactly amounts to a severe disfigurement.

A recent case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Edwards UKEAT/0467/13/DM) upheld, on appeal, the importance of looking at the impact of a disfigurement on a person’s everyday life when assessing whether or not it is severe. In this case, the claimant, a sufferer of Poland syndrome, worked as a sales associate in a mobile phone shop. His condition left him with two missing ribs and various missing muscles in his chest, making his chest look notably asymmetrical. His employers required him to wear a new type of polo shirt that made this disfigurement visible and the claimant suffered harassment and victimisation as a result. Subsequently, he brought a claim in the employment tribunal for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was important to look at the extent to which an individual would go to in order to hide their disfigurement. However, courts should not have to examine the claimant themselves nor look at photographic evidence to establish this. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove that the disfigurement substantially impacts their ability to carry out their day to day activities and that they noticeably attempt to hide their disfigurement or avoid certain places or people as a result.

It is important to note, however, that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 do not encompass piercings or tattoos in the definition of ‘disfigurement’.

 

Amarjit Atwal, Paralegal

Civil partnerships can now be converted into legal marriage

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Culture Secretary Sajid Javid has confirmed that from December 2014 couples will be able to convert their civil partnerships into marriages.

Same sex couples first received the right to marry in March 2014 under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, prior to which they were only permitted to enter into civil partnerships as per the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Now those who have already entered into a civil partnership can have their civil partnership turned into a legal marriage.

The process for conversion is fairly simple. Both parties of the civil partnership will need to sign a declaration in the presence of each other and in front of the superintendent registrar in order to become legally married.  The fee for such a conversion is £45.00 and the parties will be issued with a marriage certificate once the process is complete.

Critics question why, when civil partnerships exist, same sex couples need to get married. After all, civil partnerships are legal relationships and enable parties to have the same rights as a spouse in terms of inheritance, immigration, pension provisions and child maintenance. However civil partnerships are only civil procedures and are not the same as religious weddings or civil marriages. In addition, many believe that by creating a different form of partnership for same sex couples compared to different sex couples, a message is being sent to society: homosexual relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones.

It is clear, however, that the introduction of same sex marriage is seminal for equality campaigners and takes a further step to remove legal differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Amarjit Atwal, Paralegal

Are the UK breaking EU data retention laws?

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

07-14Datacenter_lg

In 2009, the Data Retention Regulations (SI 2009/859) were implemented by the Labour government in response to the 2006 EU Data Retention Directive which required the EU states to store citizens’ data for a minimum of six months, and for up to 24 months. In the UK, the current law is for Internet and phone providers to keep data for 12 months. However, the European Court of Justice declared the original 2006 law invalid in April 2014, it claimed; “it’s a serious interference with the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data”. The previous EU Directive allowed the government to retain phone calls, text messages and internet messages for up to 18 months.

Since then, the UK has come under fire and is allegedly breaking the law by continuing to implement the Data Retention Regulations of 2009, despite the EU changing its policies. It is unclear as to why the government hasn’t forced Internet Service Providers and Communications Providers to change their policies, with the information it is providing to companies being described as unclear.

Controversy

However, the UK has recently passed an ‘emergency’ Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill. This Bill allows data to be intercepted from any ‘remote storage’ and for data to be retained for up to 12 months.

Critics have argued that this Bill allows the UK to expand its powers relating to data retention, under the justification of prevention of terrorism. The actions of the UK in not following the EU’s recently set policies are somewhat surprising. The ‘emergency’ law will still be in effect as late as 2016, so ISPs and communication companies will continue monitoring our calls, browsing and online activities.

 

Joel Chapman, Marketing Assistant

 

No riches for the kids

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

1306259-sting-live-2011-617-409

Recently, singer Sting has made headlines by claiming he will not be leaving any of his vast wealth to his children. When planning ahead, many individuals choose not to leave their wealth to their offspring. This decision can be for a variety of reasons, for example personal disputes, their children’s own thriving financial status or merely a change in priorities. There are various ways in which to limit the amount of inheritance a child can receive through the creation of a trust, which in essence works to benefit individuals without providing them with an absolute right to the funds.

Interest in possession trusts

Interest in possession trusts provide for individuals for only a set period of time. An individual can create an interest in possession trust that allows their child to have access to the income of the trust but also provides instructions as to disposal of the actual funds. For example they could choose to make their children the ‘life tenants’ – entitled to the income of the trust – and their grandchildren, or other individuals, the ‘remaindermen’ – entitled to the trust capital.

Discretionary trusts

Discretionary trusts are different to interest in possession trusts in that they provide trustees with greater power to allow children certain capital as and when they think fit. The trustees will be able to judge what portion of the funds they wish to pay, to which beneficiary and how frequently. Discretionary trusts are best used when the trustees can be trusted implicitly to judge when to pay the beneficiaries.

While these may be the best methods to restrict the amount of inheritance a child receives after the passing of their parents, children may still be able claim that they have not been reasonably provided for, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Our friendly team at Aston Bond can assist clients across England and Wales with wills and probate. For more information please call us on 01753 486 777 or email info@astonbond.co.uk. Alternatively, you can visit our new offices at 7 Windsor Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 2DX.

 

Amarjit Awal- Litigation Paralegal  

Can Software be classed as Goods or a Service?

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

software-engineering9623992-banner

 

Due to its intangible nature it can be unclear whether software can be classed as ‘goods’, and therefore be subject to the implied terms stipulated in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, or rather as a ‘service’ under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This often leaves consumers and businesses unsure as to whether they are covered by the latter, which implies a lower standard than the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

If software is purchased in the more conventional way ‘off the shelf’, in which you receive a physical copy of the software, then it is clear that the item can be classed as ‘goods’ and therefore the consumer is covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that goods must be of a satisfactory quality.

However, things become less clear when the item is purchased online, and downloaded to the user’s computer or device directly from the internet as the consumer is not physically in the possession of an item. As no physical item is sent to the user, many people believe that the software is classed as a ‘service’ and covered by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which implies only that the service must be carried out with reasonable skill. Despite this, software may not always be classified as a service when bought online, and it remains unclear as to whether software is technically a good or a service.

This absence of certainty regarding the status of intangible items, coupled with the growth in software purchased online could force the UK to reconsider how software is considered within the law. Meanwhile, for more clarity it is prudent to check this with the seller, when buying software online, to ensure you are fully protected if a problem were to arise.

Aston Bond offers Commercial Law Services to assist individuals with business transactions, to find out more about our services click here.

 

Joel Chapman, Marketing Assistant

jchapman@astonbond.co.uk

Aston Bond would like to congratulate Ajay Maru

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Ajay Mayor Image

Aston Bond would like to send our congratulations to friend of the firm Ajay Maru. Mr Maru is a Labour ward councillor for Kenton West, and has recently been appointed as Mayor of Harrow.

In a recent interview, he said “I am honoured to take on this role as Mayor and I am committed to supporting our residents and bringing communities together”. One of his focuses is to “help local business and the business community” claiming that Harrow helped his business to ‘flourish’.

We would like to wish Mr Maru all the best in his new role, from the team here at Aston Bond.

When Trademarks Become Generic

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Escalator Image

 

As any business will know, when creating a brand the ultimate hope is that the product will become a household name. Occasionally, however, the name can prove to be too popular, and becomes synonymous with the actual product. This can lead to companies losing the legal right to the name of their product, and for their product name being used to describe other products that fall within the same category. Understandably if a company has spent a considerable amount of time, money and effort building a strong, reliable brand for their product, the last thing they need is for other products to be marketed on the back of their advertising. Here are some generic terms that it might surprise you to learn were once trademarked:

Escalator

Escalators were created by Charles Seeberger in 1900, but the trademark name rights were sold to the Otis Elevator Company a few years later. Otis lost their right to the trademark in 1950 in a well publicised case (Haughton Elevator Co v Seeberger) because they had used the term in a generic manner in their own advertising – thus allowing other companies to also use it in a generic manner when referring to a ‘moving stairway’.

Hoover

The Hoover started off as a simple vacuum cleaner, manufactured by the Hoover Company. Over time, it has become a generalised term used, particularly in the United Kingdom, for any type of vacuum cleaner, regardless of the manufacturer. It has even made its way into the Oxford Dictionary as a verb for vacuuming.

Asprin

German company Bayer AG released a drug called Asprin in the late 1800’s. Unfortunately, under war reparations as specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, asprin ceased to be a registered trademark in the UK, USA, Russia and France. Now it is used as a generic term to describe the actual drug rather than the product (which continues to be described as Asprin with a capital A).

 

Amarjit Atwal, Litigation Paralegal

aatwal@astonbond.co.uk

Aston Bond welcomes Sumeet Shangari

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Sumeet is a member of the Aston Bond property team and specialises in all aspects of commercial and high value residential property. Sumeet has experience in dealing with a range of acquisitions, disposals, Landlord and Tenant matters and secured lending transactions.

Before joining Aston Bond Sumeet previously worked at Harold Benjamin solicitors in Harrow and Charlsey Harrison solicitors in Slough.

A week in the world of Aston Bond

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Having spent a week at Aston Bond, I have nothing but praise for the firm. Aston Bond state that they are a law firm that is “traditional, yet different,” and that is exactly how I would describe the firm. Whilst maintaining the traditional high standards expected in the legal world, Aston Bond’s employees approach clients, each other and anyone else they come into contact with, with an approachable, friendly and down-to-earth manner.

On the Monday morning, my first day with Aston Bond, I was given the papers for a new urgent instruction, received that morning, to read in advance of a client meeting later that day. The client required representation at a hearing at Central London County Court on the Friday.

During the meeting, I learnt not only about the client and their need for help, but watching the Aston Bond solicitor in action epitomised the variety of skills utilised to get all the necessary information from the client.

Amongst other research and drafting based legal work, I followed this case through for the entire week, helping to draft the skeleton argument, using the Court bundle to prepare for the hearing and researching legal cases in this area of law to help provide a footing for our arguments.

We represented the said client in Court on the Friday, my final day with Aston Bond, and this experience is something I will never forget. Having attended Court on previous occasions, I had expectations of how the hearing would run, what the judge would be like and possibly even how the case may be ruled. However, this hearing was definitely not what I expected.

Interestingly, both parties were represented by solicitor advocates. It became clear very quickly that the judge reacted differently to my expectations. Instead of allowing each party to make their case and listening to both, the judge took an interventionist approach. He looked through the bundle asking each party specific, closed, questions. It appeared that he did not want to hear the persuasive cases of each party, but purely the facts regarding specific matters in order to make his decision on the case. Of course this was difficult for both solicitors, who could not use surrounding circumstances to persuade the judge that their client was not in the wrong, but ensured the judge’s views were objective and not clouded in any way.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Aston Bond and gained a lot of insight into the legal world. Following a case through from first instructions to hearing provided me with the opportunity to see all the various factors that are considered in every single legal case and confirmed for me that litigation is the area of law I want to pursue.

 

Chelsea Meade

Who governs the internet?

Posted on by Aston Bond Law Firm

Is Cyberspace literally above the law?

There are those who argue that cyberspace is a separate sovereign space where laws and governments do not apply.

“You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement”

This quote was taken from John Perry Barlow’s article published in 1996. Known as a cyber-libertarian political activist, basically meaning he helps defend your rights in the digital world, he also co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, their sole aim is to battle and defend digital freedom in the courts.

On the face of it people like John Perry Barlow are saints as they take into consideration privacy, freedom of speech and fair use of the internet, but have they crossed a virtual border? Stating that if an individual is in the virtual/digital environment they have no governing or corporeal body to regulate them is a tad farfetched, a world without any laws and regulations sounds like a plot in a Hollywood movie.

In all honestly we should all keep our feet well-grounded, as even though an individual may be surfing the internet and “visiting” cyberspace, they technically may not have even left their front room, as we are not mysteriously transported into cyberspace.  This means that if one was to use the internet for illegal or anti-social behaviour they are subject to the laws and regulations of the country they reside in.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth

The truth is that there is no governing body of the internet per se instead there are volunteer groups which consist of:

Internet Activities Board (IAB) – The technical body that oversees the development of the Internet suite of protocols.  Within this organisation it has two task forces, the IETF and IRTF, which are responsible for investigating a specific area.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) – Develops and maintains the Internet’s communication protocols. Addresses problems and coordinates new services. Appoints working groups to define standards, coordinate services between providers and performs the real work.

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) – Looks into long-term research problems that could be critical in five to ten years.

In addition to these three bodies, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seen as the technical coordination body for the Internet.

If there is no actual regulated body who governs the internet, a question must be raised. Can we regulate the actions of individuals in the digital environment at all?

Vinesh Patel, Paralegal

vpatel@astonbond.co.uk

Review Us