Legal Updates

It has been announced recently that the coalition Government is seriously considering new employment laws that would effectively make it more difficult for an employee to bring a claim of unfair dismissal against his or her employer. If you have been following our journal over recent months, you may recall how we touched on the massive increase in employment tribunals being brought by disgruntled employees against their employers – in fact, the latest statistics show that 218,000 tribunals were heard last year, and there has been a 40% increase in tribunals over the last three years.

If you are a regular reader of articles from the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs on legal issues, you may notice that this subject was covered some time ago and it is an issue that insists on making the news. Politicians all seem to make noise about changing the law concerning the use of reasonable force to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property, but it is a fact that we are no further forward today than we were when the Tony Martin murder case hit the headlines back in 1999.

The law surrounding the doctrine of doli incapax has always proven to be extremely controversial, and not just in England. No doubt every single country in the world has deliberated over the age at which a child should be presumed to know that he/she is culpable of wrongdoing to the same extent as an adult. However, where England is concerned, there are reasons that the Liberal Democrat Party is calling for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised.

An examination of the rule for settling civil claims – Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Recent announcements by the government have confirmed that later this year there will be major changes to parts of the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR). This month we will examine Part 36 of the CPR, which deals with how Claimants and Defendants can bring legal proceedings to an early conclusion. Although this can be a complex area of practice, the principles are rooted in common sense and the overriding objective of the CPR (legal proceedings should be quick, cost effective and just).

The Legal Services Act 2007 could potentially represent the most significant change ever seen to the legal industry in this country. There is no denying the fact that many of the already established legal firms are slightly apprehensive over the introduction of certain provisions of this Act, and with good reason, as the whole ethos of their company and the way in which they carry out their business is likely to be brought into question, once these new laws finally come into effect. The specific legislation to which we are referring in this article is provided for under part V, ss. 71 to 72 of the Act.

We consider when it is right to take a small claim and look at a number of tips to help you succeed.

In last month’s journal we considered the impact of the proposed increase to the small claims regime. One major effect is that it will be more important than ever to have a good understanding of civil litigation. If you have completed the Diploma course, you will be aware of the principles of litigation and this article may be a timely reminder. If you are yet to complete your Diploma, we will outline some top tips to consider when dealing with a potential claim.

Following a mystery shopping exercise and report from Dr Dianne Hayter (Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel), some extraordinary and frightening statistics have emerged regarding the validity of wills – be this through a will writing service or even a Solicitor – all types of providers are often supplying a totally substandard service in this regard. In fact, it has been reported that as many as one in five wills that were thought to have been prepared professionally, may actually be invalid. Even the firms of Solicitors that were assessed showed an equal rate of invalidity to the will writing services, and these findings are quite rightly thought to be completely unsatisfactory.

Will the proposed increase of the small claims limit spell trouble for the ‘man in the street’?

Ever since the highest court in the country changed from its title of the House of Lords to The Supreme Court, back in October 2009, it would seem that there has been a concerted effort to modernise our judicial system from the top down. This could certainly be said of the fact that on 16 May 2011, Supreme Court judgments were televised for the first time through Sky News.

Is this merely copying the United States of America, with their propensity to glamorise and televise their judicial system, or is there a genuine requirement for the hearings of the Supreme Court to be aired to the general population as a whole? This is an issue we will attempt to address within this article.

Recent case law highlights the importance of understanding how property can be held jointly

Whenever property is jointly owned, there is the possibility of disagreement. The ongoing case of Kernott v Jones [2010] provides, in the words of Lord Justice Wall, “a cautionary tale” to all unmarried couples and the solicitors who advise them.

If you have already completed the Diploma course, you will be aware that there are only two ways to hold property in England and Wales – as a joint tenant or as a tenant in common. With only two options, you would think that couples entering into the world of home ownership should always get suitable legal advice. Unfortunately, this is not the case and it can be a very costly mistake.