Kent Solicitors

If you are charging shares to a bank or anyone else, consider whether to expressly retain voting rights and whether if the shares get registered in the chargees name, that disrupts the structure of your group. e.g. your subsidiaries are no longer your subsidiaries.

Labels: legal advice Kings Hill, shares, voting rights

There are a number of key advantages and disadvantages to having a payment in lieu of notice clause (“PILON”) in your contracts of employment, which could benefit employers and employees. To discuss your options contact Selwan Yousif on 07795 821 803 or 020 7712 1751; or by email sy@kaslers.co.uk

Labels: contracts of employment, payment in lieu of notice clauses

The defendants B, C and D each commenced personal injury claims in the County Court against A. During the course of the County Court proceedings B and C had made false statements as to the extent of their injuries. It was alleged that D had made a false statement that he was unable to work and was living on benefits. All three statements were verified by a statement of truth.

The Claimants (A) applied to the Divisional Court for permission to begin committal proceedings against the defendants B,C and D.

In the pleadings, A had informed B and D that A intended to seek permission to begin committal proceedings. The police had investigated the claim against C but had not prosecuted him. A applied for permission to begin committal proceedings against C two years later.

B submitted that under the Civil Procedure Rules, A should have applied to the County Court Judge dealing with the initial proceedings to refer the matter to the Attorney General and should not have applied directly to the Divisional Court.

The Court held that, whilst CPR 31.23 and 32.14 provided for an application for committal to be made to the Judge dealing with the original proceedings, and that Practice Direction 32.28 contained the words “must refer that allegation to the court dealing with the claim”, a party to County Court proceedings was also entitled to apply to the Divisional Court for a committal order for contempt under Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The Court went on to deal with

1. the issues that the Court would need to consider before granting permission to make an application for committal,

2. the contents of the application, and

3. the effect of delay in making the application.

The Court found that permission to make an application for committal in respect of C should not be granted in view of the delay of two years. However, in respect of B and D, it found that the evidence was strong that they had knowingly made false statements in relation to matters that were material to the main issues of the case and that it was in the public interest that proceedings for contempt should be brought.

Labels: Attorney General, committal, Contempt, divisional court, false statements, statement of truth

According to current case law “Vodka” has significant goodwill.


In a recent case where a drink using a similar name to Vodka was being “passed off” as Vodka the court decided Vodka had good will and therefore should not be “passed off”.

If you think someone is copying or using your name or brand and “passing it off” as something else, then get in contact with Luke English of Kaslers Solicitors LLP

Labels: car accident legal advice, Copyright, docklands

The Court of Appeal recently considered an appeal by a local authority "L" as to the extent of its duty of care in respect of land used by the public for recreational purposes.

L owned land consisting of an area of grass surrounded by shrubs. The land was adjacent to a car park. There was a sheer drop between the land and the car park. The edge of the land had a chain link fence next to the drop. In one place, the fence had been lowered to 14 inches from the ground.

"H" a young man aged 21 had been out drinking one evening with friends. After leaving a taxi he ran away to avoid paying his fare, entered on to the land and fell down the sheer drop to the car park. He sustained serious injuries including brain damage. H issued proceedings against L for damages, claiming that L should have foreseen that youths might fool around on the land, whilst under the influence of drink. H claimed that he was an implied licensee and that L owed him a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

The Judge found:

1. that H did not have dishonest intent when he entered on to the land

2. that such behaviour could and should have been foreseen by L

3. that L should have taken steps to ensure that the chain link fence was inspected and maintained to protect H from the risk of serious injury

4. that H was a visitor in law, and

5. that L was in breach of its common law duty to H by not securely fencing the edge

On Appeal it was held that L’s duty of care was to make sure that the land was reasonably safe for use for the purposes for which L invited or permitted visitors to be on the land. The duty of care did not extend to activities for which L had not given an express or implied licence.

The Court further held that even if L had foreseen H’s conduct this was not relevant. The question was not whether L should have foreseen H’s conduct but whether L had impliedly consented to that conduct. In this instance there was no evidence to show that this was the case. L’s implied licence to the public was for normal recreational activities, it did not cover H’s use of the land. H was not a licensee but a visitor and L was not liable under the Act.

Labels: duty of care, implied licensee, occupier’s liability, public, visitor

Where a landlord makes a successful dilapidations claim against a tenant he should be entitled to recover his reasonable costs provided he has complied with the requirements of the Dilapidations Protocol and his approach to bringing the claim was conducted in a reasonable manner.

Labels: costs, Dilapidations Protocol, landlord, tenant

Where a parent, with whom the child lives, continually breaches a contact order, the Court may decide, where appropriate, to switch residence of the child to the other parent.


For help and advice contact Satvinder on 0845 371 1884

When an individual files for IVA, he must include in his written statement any child maintenance arrears. This allows the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, as a creditor, to attend the meeting for approval (or otherwise) of the IVA agreement.

Labels: child maintenance, IVA, legal advice

Keith Chegwin has been criticised for posting “his” jokes on Twitter but allegedly “his” jokes were plagiarised from other comedians jokes.

By allegedly using other comedians jokes Keith Chegwin violated a “gentleman's agreement” amongst the comedy fraternity not to copy each other’s jokes.

A joke can be copyrighted but of course it would have to be original.

If you have original material that you would like to protect from infringement give Luke English of Kaslers Solicitors a call on 01732 897976

Labels: Copyright, infringement, legal advice