Kent Solicitors

The court will look to comparative rents when deciding on damages for trespass.

In a recent case, the court rejected comparable rents after the end of the five-year trespass period in question as there was no evidence as to the historical movement of rents since the beginning of the period. The court preferred comparable rents from shortly before the commencement of the period in question and averaged them. Having done that, it made no further discount for the unauthorised planning situation or legal difficulties over access to the site.

Labels: legal advice Kings Hill, Trespass

Your tour operator is clearly responsible in contract for the events it organises.

If you book an independent contractor at your resort (even via the tour operator) the tour operator will not necessarily be liable in contract for any injury that you may sustain. In negligence, he may well owe you a duty of care, but if he has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent you from suffering injury, then he will have satisfied this duty of care.

In a recent case, a holidaymaker booked a toboggan run with an independent contractor at the resort but the tour operators representatives gave appropriate warnings as to what should be done at the end of the run. This was held to be sufficient.

This is the right of someone to 'impound' another persons property as security for a debt.

As a matter or general law, there are limitations and conditions attaching to its use.

To make them really helpful, you need to get around these limitations and conditions by contract.

We can quote a fixed fee for a meeting to discuss how you wish to protect your business and to prepare/redraft your Terms of Business.

Please contact Selwan Yousif in Docklands on 0207 712 1751 or Luke English in Kent 0845 270 2511.

Alternatively call Michael Breeze on 07900 195 195

Labels: debt, lien, security, solicitor kent, terms of business

In March 2010, three Google executives have controversially been convicted of privacy law offences by an Italian court in a recent case, a decision which could be potentially damaging to a large number of companies who host content online.

The case involved a video which was posted on Google Videos on 8 September 2006, showing a number of Turin schoolchildren bullying another child who suffers from autism. The video remained on Google Videos until 7 November 2006, when it was removed by Google following a complaint from the Italian police.

Italian prosecutors brought charges against four Google employees under Italian defamation and invasion of privacy laws for hosting the offending video. Google sought to defend the claim on the basis that under the EU E-Commerce Directive, service providers are exempt from prosecution for offensive content as long as they remove the content once they are notified of its existence. However, the Italian authorities found that three of the four employees were guilty of breaching Italian privacy laws, and imposed suspended six month sentences on each of them. All of the employees were cleared of defamation.

This decision horrified Google and a number of other leading web service providers, who feel that the case has set an alarming precedent. Googles lawyer, Matt Sucherman described it as 'attacking the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built'.

In the UK, the former Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, described the Italian courts findings as 'ridiculous' and stated that it 'brings privacy laws into disrepute'. He added that the decision is 'like prosecuting the post office for hate mail that is sent in the post'.

The practicalities of the decision mean that sites such as YouTube and Facebook would be required to monitor all content posted and immediately remove anything which is offensive or illegal. Owing to the sheer number of postings on the sites, this would be impossible with postings to You Tube taking place at a rate of 20 hours of content per minute.

Summary

The decision of the Italian court has been greeted with dismay by businesses and regulators in the rest of Europe. If the decision is upheld on appeal, the hosting of large volumes of user generated content in Italy is likely to become unworkable. In the meantime, businesses hosting third party content in Italy will need to be particularly vigilant to ensure that illegal content is taken down immediately.

In the UK, under the E-Commerce Regulations, service providers will not be liable for defamatory content or content that infringes an individuals privacy on the following conditions:

1. They do not have actual knowledge of illegal user generated content
2. That they act immediately to remove unlawful content upon becoming aware of it.

If your business hosts user generated content, the Italian decision is a timely reminder of the need to have robust monitoring and take-down procedures in place.

For help and legal advice contact Luke English on 0845 270 2513 or for further information visit our website http://www.kentsolicitor.co.uk/

Labels: legal advice Kings Hill, privacy law;

Mediation.... So useful for so many situations. It is all to easy to get hunkered down in your trench lobbing arguments like hand grenades over the top and hoping they do some damage; putting your head out and do a bit of sniping here and there - not very productive

Much better to hum loudly 'Silent Night', walk out into 'No-Mans land' and have a game of football. You might be able to resolve your differences

Labels: mediation resolution dipsute

So I hear that this some time client bought a business but did not look into (or took a gamble on) the premises

He then found the landlord locked him out because the previous guy had not paid the rent !

I am now wondering if I will get a call from him complaining about the unfairness of it all