Author: Michael Sayers

It can be intimidating to navigate the legal landscape, particularly for people who are not familiar with the complex jargon used in the industry. We’ll clear up the confusion around popular legal phrases in this beginner’s guide, giving you the knowledge you need to comprehend courtroom conversations, paperwork, and procedures. Let’s enter the legal field with confidence and clarity.

1. Jurisdiction:
   • Definition: The geographical area or legal boundaries within which a court or authority has the power to make legal decisions.
   • Example: “The court has jurisdiction over cases that occurred within the state.”
2. Litigation:
   • Definition: The process of taking formal legal action; the act or process of carrying making or defending a claim – usually in a Court or Tribunal. .
   • Example: “The parties involved opted for litigation to resolve their dispute.”
3. Claimant and Defendant/Respondent:
   • Definition: The Claimant is the party bringing a legal action, while the defendant/respondent is the party being accused or sued.
   • Example: “The Claimant  alleges breach of contract, and the defendant denies the claims.”
4. Contract:
   • Definition: A legally binding agreement between two or more parties, outlining the terms and obligations.
   • Example: “They signed a contract specifying the terms of their partnership.”
5. Tort:
   • Definition: A wrongful act or an infringement of a right that leads to civil legal liability.
   • Example: “Negligence resulting in personal injury can be a basis for a tort claim.”
6. Criminal Law vs. Civil Law:
   • Definition: Criminal law relates to offenses which breach the rules, procedures or laws that the government imposes on all of its citizens, while civil law deals with disputes or matters between individuals or entities.
   • Example: “Stealing is a criminal offense, while a breach of contract is a civil matter.”
7. Due Diligence:
   • Definition: Thorough research and investigation undertaken before entering into a legal agreement or transaction.
   • Example: “Before acquiring the business, they conducted due diligence to assess potential risks.”
8. Probate:
   • Definition: The legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person.
   • Example: “The Will is currently in probate, and the assets are being distributed accordingly.”
9. Arbitration and Mediation:
   • Definition: Methods of alternative dispute resolution where neutral third parties help parties reach a resolution outside of court.
   • Example: “They opted for arbitration to resolve their contractual dispute.”
10. Solicitor/Barrister:
    • Solicitor: A qualified legal professional who provides advice and representation on various/all areas of law and acts directly for their client.
    • Barrister: usually instructed by a solicitor to advocate in a Court on behalf of their client.  Barristers have specialist knowledge of and experience of the courtroom and therefore cases and their advice and advocacy, whilst working with the instructing solicitor, can make all the difference to a case.

Gaining a better understanding of these frequently used legal terminologies is extremely helpful in navigating the intricate legal landscape.  This guide provides a foundation but your solicitor should always explain things clearly and in a manner you understand.  If they don’t, do not be afraid to ask them!

Here at Aston Bond, we pride ourselves on providing a stress-free and pragmatic approach when you do require legal advice.  No question is too big or too small, and we take the time to ensure our clients are comfortable and understand every step of their journey.

The Bar Council has updated its guidelines for barristers on the use of ChatGPT and other AI technologies.

Although the guidelines confirm that utilising trustworthy AI tools to enhance legal services is not intrinsically wrong, they do highlight the need for barristers to proceed with caution and thoroughly check the work being produced by the AI. The most common risks include information disorder caused by systems unintentionally producing false information, violations of intellectual property rights, and breaches of confidentiality and sensitive information.

The Bar Council is especially concerned about the potential for “hallucinations,” bias, anthropomorphism, and “stereotype reinforcement” on some AI platforms. Indeed, it warned that there has already been at least one case in the UK where a litigant in person presented nine legal “authorities,” all of which turned out to be completely made up by an AI system like ChatGPT.

According to the guidelines, using AI in an irresponsible manner can result in severe and embarrassing outcomes for barristers, such as being sued for professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of confidence, defamation, data protection violations, infringement of intellectual property rights (including passing off claims), and reputational harm. It might also lead to violations of professional obligations and guidelines, which would call for disciplinary action and penalties being imposed.

According to research, new software “should not be a substitute for the exercise of professional judgement, quality legal analysis, and the expertise which clients, courts, and society expect from barristers,” even while technology can “complement and augment human processes to improve efficiency.”

The Bar Council’s chair, Sam Townend KC, stated:

“The growth of AI tools in the legal sector is inevitable and, as the guidance explains, the best-placed barristers will be those who make the effort to understand these systems so that they can be used with control and integrity. Any use of AI must be done carefully to safeguard client confidentiality and maintain trust and confidence, privacy, and compliance with applicable laws.”

He went on: “This Bar Council guidance will support barristers using LLMs to adhere to legal and ethical standards by outlining the key risks and considerations.” “It will be reviewed periodically, and practitioners must remain alert and adjust as the legal and regulatory environment shifts.”

Judges and solicitors were given advice on the use of AI at the end of last year, and this new guidance is the most recent in a series of documents that have been sent to them. The whole topic of AI is a controversial one, particularly within professional fields. One of the concerns is that  it strips away the natural or human aspect of the work, which in turn can potentially damage the reputation and validity of the work.  However, it is clear AI is here to stay and work must now be done on educating lawyers and how best to use AI – and when not too!

A public consultation on the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has been opened by the Ministry of Justice.

The Ministry of Justice’s proposed introduction of a £55 fee in the ET and EAT is intended to accomplish the following, among other things:

• To relieve some of the cost to the general taxpayer by requiring tribunal users to pay for the tribunal system, where they can afford to do so.

• To incentivise parties to settle their disputes early through ACAS without the need for claims to be brought to an ET

• To create better engagement by parties in ACAS early conciliation so as to add value for taxpayer money that is spent on providing this free service

• To alleviate some of the pressures the ET are currently facing.

It has been proposed that the fee (which will be payable on issuing the claim) being set at £55 should be moderately affordable for most.

More details can be found here:

Employment Tribunal fees were abolished in 2017 following a case bought by Unison against the government.  The Supreme Court ruled in their favour and ruling that it was unlawful on the grounds of access to justice.  The case (and subsequent abolition of fees) saw a spike in case being presented at the Tribunals.  This has continued to rise steadily over the years with some arguing the lack of fees encourages speculative or weaker cases being presented.

Of course, with a potential change in government things may well change again.  In addition, there is nothing stopping a further challenge in the Courts if fees were re-introduced.   For now however, the more that have their say the better.

Do you agree with the re-introduction of fees?  Let us know your thoughts! The government are now consulting on whether to re-introduce the fees and inviting responses. 

A very interesting case today. The world’s biggest crisps brand is now facing a deadline following a verdict  that they will now have to pay VAT on it’s mini poppadoms because they are more akin to crisps, rather than what they say they are. There is more specifics by law on products being sold  than it may seem! Walkers contended that the Sensations Poppadoms bags should be exempt from the sales tax since they are not crisps (which are included in a specific category of snack items that are liable to the tax, along with cereal bars, ice cream, and chocolate-covered biscuits).  The judge disagreed.

Foods on that list are subject to 20% VAT under the complicated tax regulations.  Because traditional poppadoms are considered restaurant cuisine or food that needs to be prepared further rather than a packaged snack, they receive a zero rating. Previous VAT debates have involved McVitie’s Jaffa Cakes, which tax authorities in the 1990s unsuccessfully argued were biscuits; Pringles, a win for HM Revenue and Customs when they were found to be a crisp; and flapjacks, which were found to be too chewy to be a cake and therefore subject to VAT.

Walkers said that their little poppadoms, which were meant to be eaten with curries or for dipping in sauces, shouldn’t be categorised as crisps because they weren’t made of potatoes and needed to be prepared beforehand. In spite of this, a tax tribunal determined that the “small, generally round, bite-sized objects” were in fact crisps because 40% of the ingredients, including potato starch and granules, were “potato-derived.” The objects were also described as “somewhat wavy, with small bubbles on the surface.”

“Nominative determinism is not a characteristic of snack foods: calling a snack food Hula Hoops does not mean that one could twirl that product around one’s midriff, nor is Monster Munch generally reserved as a food for monsters,” stated the tribunal judges, Anne Fairpo and Sonia Gable.

The idea that Sensations Poppadoms were employed similarly to their larger brethren did not convince them either. Given that we believe there is a practical limit to the amount of dip or chutney that most people are likely to want to combine with the crunch of the conveyor product, we did not believe in practice that they were significantly different from potato crisps in terms of their ability to convey dips, etc.

Walkers have not yet commented on the ruling but may, nevertheless, file an appeal.

The case covers complex tax rules and we always advise getting professional advice on such matters.  At Aston Bond we have worked alongside tax specialists and accountants in the past as needed. However, obtaining advice early on can avoid fines as well as hefty legal costs.