IT Security breach prevention tips, practical & legal
1. Familiarise yourself with IT and data security law
2. Carry out regular reviews of your online security, test firewalls, keep a proper log of all passwords and change them regularly
3. Always ensure all computers in your network have string and up-to-date anti-virus software
4. Consider levels of access to information in your organisation, review and update regularly
5. Don’t forget physical security;
6. If you allow remote access to your network all the above considerations also apply to the remote location for access
7. Train staff and enforce policies consistently
Posted May 14th, 2011 in Uncategorized |
Under UK law, anyone who is allowed unopposed occupation of a piece of land for more than twelve years (10 years for registered land if appropriate procedures are followed) can acquire legal title to the land. Although numerous safeguards were introduced in the
Land Registration Act 2002, which introduced a system of notices before the title could be transferred, this continues to be the case.
The UK's approach to 'squatters' rights' (known in legal circles as adverse possession) has been ruled to be lawful according to a ruling by the European Court.
If you allow people to make use of land you own without taking measures to protect your rights you run the danger of giving them permanent legal rights over your land or even losing legal title to it. Contact us for advice.
Posted May 9th, 2011 in General |
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published guidance for employers and those in the recruitment sector on the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR), which come into force on 1 October 2011.
The AWR will give agency workers the same basic terms and conditions of employment as if they had been recruited directly by the hirer, once they have completed a qualifying period of 12 calendar weeks in a particular jobs, but will not fundamentally affect employment status or how agency staff are placed and managed.
The 50-page guidance covers:
-
the scope of the AWR;
-
qualifying for equal treatment;
-
how to identify basic working and employment conditions and the relevance of a ‘comparator’;
-
pay;
-
working time and holiday entitlement;
-
pregnant workers and new mothers;
-
pay between assignments;
-
information, liability and remedies;
-
information a Temporary Work Agency (TWA) must have before supplying an agency worker; and
-
compliance information required by a TWA from a hirer.
Employers are advised to consider how the AWR will affect them and have procedures in place by 1 October to ensure compliance. For individual advice, contact us.
.
Posted May 9th, 2011 in General |
It may be assumed that when a couple purchase a property in equal shares, that is how ownership remains, but it isn’t necessarily so.
In a recent case, the High Court had to rule on the ownership of a house, which had been bought for £30,000 by a cohabiting man and woman who lived in it between 1985 and 1993. When the relationship broke up, the man moved out and ceased to contribute to the mortgage and running expenses of the property, and made no contr
ibution towards maintenance of the couple’s children. He bought another property and moved there. The couple cashed in a joint insurance policy to assist him to finance his new home.
In 2008, it became necessary to determine the respective shares of the ownership of the property, by which time its value had risen to £245,000. The County Court ruled that the share of the woman who had remianed in the house should be 90 per cent. On appeal, the High Court upheld this decision.
After a further appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that the split should be 50:50. The case is now to be heard by the Supreme Court and may be expected to set a precedent for how similar cases will be decided in the future.
Posted May 6th, 2011 in Family |
Keeping your head (and thereby taking a reasonable approach) when all about you are losing theirs can pay dividends in court.
In a recent case involving the break-up of a limited liability partnership (LLP), a partner who had been effectively expelled by the other members made an offer to them, in open correspondence (correspondence which is not legally privileged), that they should buy out his share in the LLP at fair market value.
The offer was rejected. When the case went to court, the court ordered that the ex-partner’s share should be bought out by the other members of the partnership at fair market value.
Because he had made the offer in open correspondence, the court ruled that the ex-partner’s costs should be settled on an ‘indemnity’ basis, which means he will receive approximately 90 per cent of his costs from the losers. Normally, the winner can expect to receive about 70 per cent of their costs from the loser.
The courts generally react favourably to litigants who are shown to have tried to adopt a reasonable approach.
We can help you negotiate a successful outcome to your commercial dispute.
Posted May 3rd, 2011 in Commercial Litigation |
Infringement of a trade mark need not be a visual issue: a trade mark can be infringed when the sound of the trade mark is infringed..
The case arose when the international toy manufacturer Hasbro alleged that its trade mark ‘PLAY-DOH’ had been infringed by a company selling ‘Play Dough’, an edible dough for children. The marks were not similar in appearance, nor were the products physically identical.
The defendants argued that PLAY-DOH had become synonymous with modelling clay and was thus so generic in meaning that it had lost its distinctiveness. It would not therefore qualify for trade mark protection. They also argued that if the words PLAY-DOH could be extended to cover ‘Play Dough’, then they lacked ‘distinctive character’, which is a necessity for a trade mark to be enforceable.
The court rejected both arguments.
It is good sense to make sure that you research trade marks before you start to use any trading style.We can assist you to make sure that you do not infringe others’ trade marks, and help you to protect your own trade marks and the rights attached to them.
Posted April 28th, 2011 in Commercial Litigation |
With all the hoop-la about the proposed change to the ‘no win, no fee’ regime, another set of proposals, which may well be of greater importance for many people has slipped under the radar of the popular press.
A new consultation paper proposes changes to the limits on claims to be heard by the lower courts. The proposals include:
-
the limit of a claim which can be dealt with in the small claims court is to be increased from the current £5,000 to £15,000; and
-
the minimum limit for a case to be sent to the High Court is to be raised from £25,000 to £100,000; and
In addition, the online system for settlement of smaller road traffic accident cases is to be adapted for use in all small personal injury cases up to £50,000 in value and trialled for use in claims for clinical negligence against the NHS.
Posted April 28th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |
Today is World Intellectual Property Day and the global members of the World Intellectual Property Office have joined forces to help raise awareness of how patents, copyright, trade marks and designs affect everyday lives. This year’s theme is ‘Designing the Future’.
Innovators and creative minds across the country are being encouraged to protect their inventions and ideas to help design the future. Designs are about the way an object looks and developers can invest a lot of time and money into making sure their designs are fit for purpose.
Minister for Intellectual Property Baroness Wilcox said, “Designs touch almost every part of our day to day lives, from the chairs we sit on to the phones we use. Registering your design with the Intellectual Property Office can offer protection against unauthorised copies and imitations.
“We are keen to encourage businesses to get their designs protected to allow them to reap the potential financial rewards of their innovations. Many people are unaware that you can register a design for just £60, granting exclusive rights that are renewable for up to 25 years.
“Today is about raising awareness of the importance to businesses of protecting their innovative ideas. Investing in their creativity and ideas now can help shape growth and success in the future.”
Further information on World Intellectual Property Day can be found on the IPO website at
www.ipo.gov.uk.
If you have an invention, trade mark, original design or the practical application of a good idea that you wish to protect, contact us.
Posted April 26th, 2011 in General |
A recent case will cause concern to anyone who has a specific wish that their estate should not pass to certain people. It involved a woman who left an estate of more than £400,000, which she wished to go to various animal charities.
The woman had a daughter, from whom she had been estranged for more than 25 years. She had written a letter explaining exactly why she did not want her daughter to benefit under her will.
The daughter, despite not having had any form of support from her mother since the estrangement, sought a share of the estate by making a claim under the legislation designed to grant relief to people who are dependent on a person who dies without making reasonable provision for them.
The Court of Appeal accepted the daughter’s claim, apparently on the ground that she was not well off and was a deserving case. So, despite her mother’s specific wish, she stands to inherit such sum as the court will later determine constitutes ‘reasonable provision’.
If you are concerned that your assets may fall into the hands of someone undeserving, we can advise you on the steps to take to help make sure this does not occur.
Posted April 26th, 2011 in Family, General, Trusts Wills and Probate |
The long-running battle between banks and their customers over alleged mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) plans took another step forward last week when the High Court dismissed a challenge brought by the banks that guidance on such policies issued by the Financial Services Authority on sales of insurance did not apply to PPI policies.
PPI policies were sold aggressively by banks to customers who took out loans. They insure the person taking the loan against redundancy and illness, with the insurer covering any loan payments due during the period of incapacity or unemployment. The cost of the policy was normally added to the loan on day one, meaning that if the debt was paid off early, premiums had been paid unnecessarily. Typically, a PPI policy would add more than 20 per cent to the loan.
The move paves the way for customers to receive refunds of premiums paid. However, an appeal by the banks is likely and, even if unsuccessful, the estimated £4.5 billion cost will inevitably end up being met by the current customers of the banks, most probably through the demise of free bank accounts.
If you have suffered a loss through being mis-sold a financial product, you may be able to obtain redress. Contact us for advice
Posted April 26th, 2011 in Civil Litigation, General |
