Kent Solicitors

Police are to investigate whether companies have checked that employees have an MOT certificate for their vehicles, have a valid driving licence and are insured for business use, and they will also question employers on whether they have made excessive demands on their employees requiring them to drive when tired.

Labels: company car employment

It still happens! Landlords seek substantial damages against a tenant for breach of repairing obligations, but fail to take into account the fact that they intend to redevelop. If the court accepts that redevelopment is likely, then damages are likely to be nominal

Labels: Lease landlord redevelopment repair damages

Leases often say that the tenant must pay for repairs carried out by the landlord. Often, an argument arises as to whether a particular item of work is a " repair " or "improvement"

What happens when a lot of roof/cladding work has to be done to a block of flats and it is sensible, taking a long-term view, to replace window frames, while scaffolding is up although the window frames might actually not need replacing for a few years. Is this a repair or is it an improvement?

The court recently held that such works could be a "repair" but left it to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to decide whether in the circumstances of the particular building, the cost of doing the work now compared to the cost of doing it in future, the saving being made by doing the works while scaffolding was up anyway, made it reasonable to regard the work as a "repair"

Labels: leasehold service charges repair improvement cost works

Any employer, especially those with regular customers, fears that a member of his staff might leave, go to a competitor or set up on his own and solicit his customers.

Often, an employment contract will contain a restrictive covenant prohibiting the employee from doing this. The courts are quick to strike down such covenants as being in "restraint of trade" unless they are just, and only just, wide enough to protect the employer's legitimate business interests.

However, in a blatant case, the court can find that the employee is in breach of the covenant , that the former employer lost the chance of orders from his former customers. and will assess damages

Labels: employment restrictive covenant damages

A solicitor must try to estimate the costs of any litigation, so that the client has some idea of what the exercise might cost him. Often, matters crop up and the solicitor should revise his estimate

A recent case established that if the solicitors final bill was a lot more, then the solicitor was not necessarily restricted to charging the estimate only, but the court could decide what was fair and reasonable to expect the client to pay and treat the amount in the estimate as a factor to take into account

Labels: solicitors estimate costs

Any claim for unfair dismissal must be lodged with the employment tribunal within 3 months of the action giving rise to the claim

This can be extended if it is not "reasonably practicable to lodge it in time". There is much case law as to what is "reasonably practicable" and that the decisions tend to be quite strict against the employee

However, where the employer is operating the statutory dismissal procedure and appeal process, it is usual for the three-month time limit to be extended. In a recent case, the employer brought that procedure and appeal process to an abrupt and unexpected halt 5 hours before the expiry of the 3 month deadline

The Employment Tribunal held that it had not been reasonably practicable for the employees to lodge his claim in time and therefore granted an extension

Labels: unfair dismissal time limit employer employee employment

If you are owed money by an individual or a company, you have a way of seeking the money without starting court proceedings. Serve a statutory demand!

This implies that if the debt is not paid within 21 days, you will issue a bankruptcy / winding up. This threat often makes a debtor pay up (if he is just mucking you about and has the money - not much good if he is on his 'last legs' anyway)

Do not use it if there is even the faintest allegation of a defence - the court will cancel your statutory demand, probably make you pay the costs of the exercise laving you to sue through the County / High Court (which is what you were trying to avoid)

Labels: Statutory demand bankruptcy winding up

Often a relative will put their life on hold to look after an elderly person in the expectation that he/she will inherit when an elderly person dies. Sometimes he/she is disappointed when the will is read because they are not mentioned.

It may be possible to prove that the elderly person did make a promise and the relative relied upon it to his/her detriment (i.e. put his/her life on hold). These are the elements of proprietary estoppel

Labels: proprietary estoppel promise will detriment

A man starts a business making something, builds it over 2+ years creating employment and wealth for many people before selling it. Until April 2008, he pays 10% CGT

A man buys something, perhaps some land, and sells it on almost immediately at a profit. He employs no-one and benefits no-one but himself. Until April 2008, he pays 40% CGT

After April 2008, there is a flat rate of 18% CGT

The first man needs to sell quickly - else face an 80% rise in tax. The second man needs to delay the sale a few months to achieve a 55+% saving

Labels: Capital Gains Tax

If you work for one of a long list of organisations within the 'public sector', you can move your pension to your new Employer on advantageous terms - namely you can move your years of service, not the cash equivalent transfer value ('CETV')

In one recent divorce case, in which we acted, the Wife had worked (many years ago) for some 7 years for a local authority and her leaving salary back then was some #7,500 p.a. and her CETV was #18,000. She had now returned to work at #22, 500 with another organisation, but which was in the 'public sector'

In the divorce, the Wife was asking the Court to accept that her pension CETV was #18,000 and she had not taken sufficient steps to ascertain her position under the PSTC

On behalf of the Husband, we persuaded the Court that the true CETV that it should take into account was #54,000. The Wife was transferring in, not a CETV, but her 7 years of service which would then apply to her new salary. Her new salary was 3 times her old one so her new CETV would be 3 times her old one and #18,000 x 3 = #54,000

Labels: divorce pensions public sector transfer club

Just spent all day in Maidstone County Court where solicitors for wife on the other side had not ascertained her new working tax credit receipts, following her starting well paid job - over 5 months ago

They / she got fixed with the historical (probably higher) figure as part of her existing income - ho hum!

Labels: divorce investigation tax credits

Earlier this year we reported that High Court case where a Husband, having reluctantly transferred assets to his Wife under a Court Order, went bankrupt and then his Trustee in bankruptcy successfully claimed back from the Wife those same assets to pay off his debts

The Court of Appeal has reversed this decision saying that it would be "unfortunate in the extreme" if a settlement approved in a divorce court could be undone for up to 5 years because the husband went bankrupt.

Labels: Divorce bankruptcy insolvency trustee

Trusts are often set up as part of a divorce settlement because a spouse is more inclined to give assets to the other, if they are held in trust rather than given out right. However, changes in the Finance act 2006 have made the position more difficult

Simplified example: Under a court order or by agreement on a settlement, Husband pays a lump sum to Trustees to hold in trust for Wife for life, thereafter for children

There is no inheritance tax on creation off the trust or transfer of money into it, but there is a 10 yearly charge and also further charge when money leaves the trust

There is no Inheritance Tax on the death of Wife

Labels: Divorce Trusts

A common Court Order made/Settlement Agreement reached between divorcing couples is that the jointly owned FMH should be held in trust for both Husband and Wife, and is not sold until the youngest child reaches 17 . The Wife and the children live there rent-free, subject to the Wife paying all outgoings. This can have adverse tax consequences - see our article here

Labels: divorce family matrimonial home

Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange and O2 are being sued by operator 3 for up to #250 m over alleged collusion to withhold details needed for potential 3 customers to move their phone numbers from existing providers. The 4 operators are also accused of abusing their dominant market position. Since 1997 customers have been allowed to keep their mobile phone number if they switch operator, but the process takes 5 days and near-instant switching will not be introduced until 2009.

OFCOM is planning to force mobile operators to reduce the time it takes someone to switch their mobile phone number to a new service provider. They say that from April 2008, mobile operators should cut the time to two days, and from September 2009, to two hours.

Labels: Switching mobile providers ofcom

From 06/04/2000

• all maintenance is exempt from income tax
• all maintenance is paid gross
• tax relief on maintenance payments is abolished

This means that

• Husband pays Wife out of net income with no tax relief
• Wife receives the income and does not have to pay tax on it

Labels: Divorce income-tax maintenance arrangements

The calculation of child support payments is not necessarily easy, but a case has made it clear that not all receipts counts as income for the purposes of child maintence.

Although a director"s salary would, of course, be considered as income; repayments of a loan made by him to the company would not - this is nothing to do with capital, not income

Labels: Child Support Agency Maintenance Assessments director loan repayment