Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) today welcomed the interim report from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The BSB looks forward to working with the CMA as they seek to improve competition in the provision of legal services.
The BSB agrees with the CMA that individuals and small businesses would benefit from better information about the quality and price of legal services. The regulator shares the CMA’s aim to promote competition in the provision of legal services. The BSB is already working to improve the information which legal customers receive through the client care letters which they require barristers to send to their clients.
The BSB notes the CMA’s view that they have not seen clear evidence that the current regulatory framework significantly impedes competition and that, while moving to an alternative model may generate longer term benefits, changes to the regulatory framework also carry risks. The BSB welcomes the CMA’s support for the principles that regulators must be fully independent and that regulation should be proportionate and risk based. The BSB recently set out its risk based approach to regulation in a series of documents published in April.
BSB Director General Dr Vanessa Davies said: “We welcome the CMA’s report. We agree that consumers would benefit from better information about the price and quality of different legal services providers and we look forward to working with them as they take their work forward. We are already working to improve the information which customers receive through client care letters. We also welcome the CMA’s support for the principle that regulators must be fully independent from the providers whom they regulate.”
(Source: BSB)
The 4th Anti-money Laundering Directive
There’s been a significant number of developments in this space in recent months. We’ve posted articles about the 4th Anti-money Laundering Directive, and a series of related issues. UK legislation to implement the Directive via new Money Laundering Regulations should be in place before June 2017, if not before the end of the year. There is no reason to believe that this will be affected by a possible Brexit. However, if the UK leaves the EU, it will be able to vary its AML architecture from the EU model. We can’t immediately see why the UK would do this, especially if it’s still signed up to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The FATF Mutual Evaluation of the UK is due to take place in 2018, which could coincide with the UK actually leaving the EU. Any perceived deviation in UK AML standards due to Brexit could have a negative impact.
UK Government’s Proposed Reform of AML Law including SAR reporting
The UK Government’s AML Action Plan proposals were put out for consultation in April 2016. In this period of uncertainty there is a question mark about which law reform initiatives will be actioned and completed, and which will not. We will watch this space and provide updates.
UK Bribery Act (BA)
Whilst the BA is UK law and we see no immediate change from a possible Brexit, there’ll be question marks over the UK’s exit from the subscribers to the EU’s Convention against Corruption and the level of co‑operation the UK can expect from the EU member states in a post-Brexit world.
Europol & the European Arrest Warrant
We anticipate that the EU’s police force, Europol, will no longer include a UK representative. The European Arrest Warrant will not be effective across UK borders. This raises the question about whether Mutual Legal Assistance, so effective for all prosecutors and regulators in recent years, will be negatively affected. The UK Government is well advised to seek a separate agreement on co-operation with the EU, post-Brexit.
Sanctions
EU nations have, most recently, been prominent in working together to issue sanctions in response to the situation in the Ukraine and Crimea. We must assume that if further political emergencies necessitate sanctions in the next two years the UK will be part of the EU initiative. After Article 50 has been engaged and implemented, the UK will simply issue sanctions as an individual nation, but it will still be part of the UN, and presumably will take account of and endorse EU and US/OFAC measures as well.
Post-Brexit and Future Measures
The UK Government will be aware that Brexit brings the risk of a diminution of regulatory and criminal risk standards, were which previously common goals with our EU neighbours. This is another source of alarm for UK corporates – and overseas companies affected by UK law – who seek the highest standards in corporate governance, and white collar criminal sanction deterrence.
Written by Louise Delahunty, leading litigator specialising in white collar criminal defense and internal investigations, and Partner at Cooley LLP.
(Source: Cooley LLP)
Lawyers are still left confused by pensions with more than half not understanding their key features, and almost three quarters (72%) not knowing how much to save each month, according to new research by Wesleyan the specialist financial mutual.
One in four (25%) incorrectly believe they can withdraw their full pension fund, tax free, at any time, while the amount they believe they will need each year in retirement has risen by £1,174 from £35,678 in 2014* to £36,852 in 2016.
Vicki Wentworth, Chief Customer and Strategy Officer at Wesleyan, said: “It is very hard for a busy lawyer, with all the pressures that come with the job, to free up the time to frequently review their plans for retirement.
“As a result, there is clearly still some confusion around what pensions are there to do and how they can help you plan for the future, but proper planning is essential to help us enjoy the standard of living we dream of in retirement.”
Even the widespread publicity about pensions in the past year has had a limited impact, with only a third of lawyers (31%) saying it prompted them to do any research about their pension over the last twelve months. Meanwhile, one in eight (13%) have no intention of researching their retirement plans in the next 12 months, suggesting those in the dark will remain confused about what lies ahead.
The research also found that more than two thirds (71%) of lawyers are unaware how much the government contributes for every pound invested in a pension.
More than three quarters (78%) don’t understand the pension freedom reforms put in place last spring despite the extensive publicity surrounding their introduction more than a year ago.
Overall, one in four (25%) lawyers incorrectly believe the reforms mean you people can withdraw your their full pension fund at any time, completely tax free. More than a quarter (26%) believe it is only possible to take a sum from a defined contribution pension after retirement.
Vicki added: “It is hard to plan for retirement if you don’t fully understand the options available to you and what you can actually do with your savings – our research shows most lawyers sadly don’t understand.
“How much lawyers need in retirement depends on their own circumstances and needs, but what is clear is that many lawyers have an idea of what they would like to have after they finish work, but don’t understand enough about pensions to make effective plans to achieve it.
“Given the amount of publicity that has surrounded the major pensions during the past year, we would expect to see lawyers begin to plan earlier for retirement, but our insight tells us that this isn’t the case and that lawyers are still uncertain about what action to take.
“Fortunately, knowledgeable, credible, expert advice can help to get people’s retirement plans back in good health.”
Wesleyan specialises in providing specialist financial advice and services to doctors, dentists, lawyers and teachers.
Research based on a survey of 100 lawyers by Censuswide on behalf of Wesleyan, February 2016
*Research based on a survey of 100 lawyers by Censuswide on behalf of Wesleyan, February 2014
(Source: Wesleyan)
The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s landmark 2014 decisions in Cartier [1] to grant an injunction against internet service providers which required them to block access to certain websites which sell counterfeit goods.
The claimants (together ‘Cartier’), are the owners of trade marks for CARTIER and MONTBLANC (used for luxury watches and pens respectively). The defendants are the UK’s five largest broadband providers (the ‘ISPs’). Cartier sought an injunction which required the ISPs to implement measures which prevented their users accessing certain websites which sold counterfeit goods to UK customers, thereby infringing Cartier’s trademarks. Such measures have become common in relation to copyright infringing websites in recent years, with applications for these orders now not opposed by the ISPs.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the ISPs’ arguments that the court did not have jurisdiction to make such an order, that the threshold conditions for making the order were not met, and that the order granted by the High Court was disproportionate.
The ISPs also argued unsuccessfully that Cartier should bear the costs of implementing the blocking orders, not the ISPs.
Jurisdiction
The High Court decisions, given by Mr Justice Arnold, held that the jurisdiction to grant an injunction against the ISPs resided in section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act, which confirms that the Court can grant an injunction “in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”.
It had been necessary to resort to this broad general principle because, unlike section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which implemented Article 8(3) of the Information Society Directive, there is no equivalent statutory provision for granting injunctions against intermediaries in the context of trade mark infringements.
Whilst taking a slightly different route to get there, the Court of Appeal agreed that the High Court had jurisdiction to make blocking orders under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act, as interpreted in light of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (which provides that member states shall ensure that rights holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an IP right). The court recognised that the ISPs are not guilty of any wrongdoing, and it rejected a submission that the power of the court is limited in certain circumstances. The decision demonstrates the UK’s flexible approach to granting injunctions to adapt to a changing world.
Threshold conditions
The Court of Appeal was also satisfied that the threshold conditions for making such a blocking order were satisfied in these circumstances.
Those threshold conditions are that the ISPs must be intermediaries within the meaning of Article 11; that either the users or the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant’s trademarks; that the users or the operators of the website must use the services of the ISPs; and that the ISPs must have actual knowledge of this.
The Court of Appeal rejected the ISPs’ submission that the target websites had not used the services of the ISPs to infringe the registered trademarks (primarily on the basis that, unlike with copyright infringing material which is delivered to users digitally, counterfeit goods are instead posted to the purchaser once the purchase has been made).
The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the threshold conditions were satisfied because: (i) each of the target websites was directed to consumers in the UK; and (ii) the ISPs were “essential actors” in all of the communications between the consumers and the operators of the websites selling counterfeit goods.
Proportionality: who bears the cost?
The Court of Appeal then went on to consider whether it was proportionate to grant the injunction sought by Cartier, bearing in mind the requirements identified by the High Court that the relief must be necessary, effective, dissuasive, not unnecessarily complicated or costly, avoid barriers to legitimate trade, be fair and equitable and strike a fair balance between the applicable fundamental rights, and be proportionate.
The focus of much of the ISPs’ argument before the Court of Appeal was whether they should have to bear the costs of implementing the blocking order, rather than the rights holders who benefitted from it.
Those costs include both the marginal costs of implementing any particular order, and also a proportion of the capital costs of the existing technical systems which are needed. The Court of Appeal decided, by a majority of two to one, that those costs should be borne by the ISPs.
Lord Justice Briggs, in a dissenting judgement, stated that the marginal costs of implementing a blocking order should instead be borne by the rights holder, in line with the approach taken by the courts in other situations where compliance by an innocent party (here the ISPs) with an equitable duty to assist the victim of a wrongdoing (here the rights holder) should generally be at the victim’s expense.
Implications
This judgement clearly confirms the availability of blocking orders for trade mark owners, and this will undoubtedly become a useful tool in the armoury of many rights holders, particularly those in the luxury goods sector.
It will be interesting to see whether the ISPs take encouragement from the dissenting judgement of Lord Justice Briggs, and seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of who bears the costs of implementing blocking orders. This will be a particularly contentious issue if the Cartier decision opens the floodgates for other trade mark owners, and the costs of implementing blocking orders escalates greatly.
Written by Partner Jeremy Blum and Sean Ibbetson, Bristows LLP.
[1] - Cartier International AG & others v British Sky Broadcasting Limited & others, [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch), [2014] EWHC 3915 (Ch), and [2014] EWHC 3794 (Ch)
(Source: Bristows LLP)
The travel season is here. Many travellers are using their mobile devices during their trips, and most take advantage of public Wi-Fi offered at hotels, airports, restaurants and city streets.
While numbers of people using public Wi-Fi continue to climb, the amount of online scams and hackings is increasing at the same - if not faster - pace. Free wireless networks, found almost everywhere, provide us with easy access to now-essential Internet service, but are not able to offer security in most cases, since public Wi-Fi can be hacked into very easily.
As we have become more globally interconnected, no one is protected from breaches of privacy, unless we take steps to protect ourselves.
For example, hackers have been using sniffers, a software designed to intercept and decode data when it is transmitted over a network. Wireless sniffers are specifically created for capturing data on wireless networks.
The most common threat, however, is a hacker positioning himself as a hotspot. When that happens, a Wi-Fi user will be sending their information to a hacker, and that could include credit card information, all emails, and any other sensitive information they might be transmitting. This is extremely easy for a hacker to do, as Wi-Fi spots rarely require authentication to establish a connection.
The best and most effective way for any traveller to protect their data is to use a VPN (Virtual Private Network). A VPN service encrypts all the traffic flow between the Internet and a device thus hiding user¹s IP address.
How to choose a VPN?
Choose a VPN that is easy to use - and is user friendly. For example, NordVPN has recently launched its first Mac and Android apps geared towards everyday Internet user, who cares about privacy and security online. How does it work? Log in (the first time only) and press the ON button. The app will then choose the fastest server to connect to, in a country of your choice. That¹s all it takes to hide your IP address and to start safe browsing.
Also, beware of free VPN service providers. Free VPN providers do not necessarily provide highest quality security measures. A VPN service needs to pay for the server maintenance, staffing and operational costs and in itself cannot be free. ŒFree VPNs¹ typically rely on third party advertisers to cover the costs. Often they are free proxy services, marketed as a VPN service, when in fact proxies are not encrypted (they just change your IP address, but do not hide/encrypt it).
The benefits of using a VPN when on the road:
VPNs are becoming the future in the world of tightening online security, and soon using a VPN will be as common as going online. Besides using a VPN, travellers should use antivirus and anti-spyware and automatically update their software.
(Source: NordVPN)
In 2012 CG Naylor LLP (formerly Crabtree Law) made waves as one of the UK’s first newly formed Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law firms. Featured by The Guardian, Legal Futures and Legal Week at the time, it was an innovative experiment in the legal industry.
Where once the jury was still out as to whether ABS law firms would prove a successful business model, there is no longer any doubt concerning the company’s expansive potential.
On Monday 11th July CG Naylor LLP will be moving its head office from Finchley Central to Buckingham Palace Road in Victoria, becoming one of the closest law firms to the Queen.
A mark of commitment and ambition, the move to this prestigious Prime Central London (PCL) location will enable the company to compete for the highest quality work and clients.
Founded by James Naylor in 2012, the firm is a relatively recent entrant to the legal market and has already won the recognition befitting of its distinguished new address.
Indeed CG Naylor LLP was a finalist in the Solicitors Firm of the Year category and Highly Commended for Solicitor of the Year at the Enfranchisement and Right to Manage Awards 2016, as well as being named a finalist for ABS of the Year at The Lawyer Awards 2015.
James Naylor (Managing Partner) said: “We believe that relocating to Central London will allow us to continue to grow the firm and attract the best lawyers to work on the highest quality cases. We have loved our time in North London, but this exciting move makes us hugely optimistic about the next stage of our evolution into a full service law firm.”
Fast outgrowing its roots as a boutique law firm in North London, CG Naylor LLP has thrived as a result of – not in spite of – its status as one of the original ABS law firms.
For more information please contact James Naylor (Partner) on 020 7963 8690, email james.naylor@cgnaylor.co.uk or visit www.cgnaylor.co.uk.
(Source: CG Naylor LLP)
Over the last few months, and following the recent Orlando massacre, gun violence and weapons law has been highly in debate throughout the US.
Now authorities in California have introduced a range of new laws designed to prevent mass shootings by seizing guns from those considered a danger to others or themselves and banning large ammo magazines.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed six gun-control bills into state legislation, comprising an expansion of the 1989 law commonly known as the assault weapons ban. California is known for already having some of the tightest weapon laws in the US.
Under this new legislation, Californian citizens can now have their weapons confiscated by authorities, without being accused or convicted of any crimes. Family members and police must appeal to a judge for a ‘gun violence restraining order’ for the guns to be seized. This order lasts up to 21 days and can be extended.
The high-capacity gun magazine ban has also been introduced, but will come into effect on July 1st 2017. Owners of high capacity gun magazines will now have to get rid of said property by re-selling it to a firearms dealer, entrusting it to authorities, destroying it or removing it from the state of California.
A bill requiring ammunition background checks was also signed, and another banning the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons.
The new laws have already initiated a number of rallies against the bans and gun activists say they will not be adhering to the new laws.
Youtube prankster Coby Persin recently took to Times Square to photograph himself and his ‘wife’, who was 12 years old, in order to raise awareness of the long-standing legality of young marriage in Virginia.
As a result, New Yorkers were stunned at the obscenity, and thus the state of Virginia has now passed a bill that update previous laws on marriage, which until now made it legally sound for girls aged 12 or 13 to be married, on the grounds of parental consent and of them being pregnant.
The legal age has now been amended to 18, and 16 on those same grounds.
“We hope that legislators will see the efforts in Virginia as a wake-up call about how their laws can facilitate forced marriages of children,” said Jeanne Smoot, Tahirih’s senior counsel for policy and strategy, according to the Washington Post.
Activist fought for the bill stating that the original law constituted forced marriage, human trafficking and statutory rape under the disguise of marriage.
The new legislation was passed by state politicians Jill Holtzman Vogel, a Republican, and Jennifer McClellan, a Democrat.
This however is not the first to be heard on this matter; similar bills have also been passed this year, in California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York.
Brexit has prompted a surge in enquiries to immigration lawyers with businesses and workers concerned for their future one week on from the EU Referendum, according to UK law firm Simpson Millar.
The firm’s Head of Immigration Emma Brooksbank has reported a huge rise in calls from EU migrants hoping to secure permanent residence and a similar surge in enquiries from businesses employing foreign workers who face a significant new tariff as the UK exits the European Union.
Emma warns the bill for recruiting employees from overseas could soon hit a record £2,675 – or more. She says: “If the UK removes the current exemptions for EEA nationals and ceases to be a signatory to the Treaties which enshrine the rights of free movement in the EU, companies would likely need to navigate Tier 2 of the Points Based System to recruit from the EU. This can quickly become a very expensive exercise.
“Under Tier 2, an employer needs a sponsor’s licence which carries a one-off cost of £1,476. For each employee, they also need a Certificate of Sponsorship which carries a fee of £199. The employee needs to apply for their visa but often the employer meets this cost to which currently stands at £575 for entry clearance and £664 for leave to remain.
“The Immigration Act 2016 imposes an Immigration Skills Charge which was due to be introduced in April 2017. I anticipate that this could now be brought forward. The proposal is for businesses that recruit from overseas to pay a charge of £1,000, or £364 for small business, for every employee when they apply for entry clearance or leave to remain. They would usually pay the charge twice in the lifetime of a person’s leave under Tier 2.
“When you add up the sums, the immediate cost of taking on an overseas worker could soon be a staggering £3,250 per employee or more – and that doesn’t even take into account the cost of recruitment, legal fees and regulatory administrative costs.”
The dedicated Immigration section on Simpson Millar’s website has seen a 1,100% increase in enquiries since the Brexit vote was announced on 24th June, driven by a 290% increase in unique visitors. “Our website stats are a clear indication of just how many people and businesses are concerned about the implications of Brexit. It is the law of inevitability. I suspect we will see a record number of residence card and permanent residence card applications this summer – many from people who never thought they would need it.”
Simpson Millar holds weekly drop-in clinics in Manchester and Leeds which saw three times as many people attend as normal in the week following Brexit. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are currently over 2 million non-UK nationals from EU countries working in Britain.
A breakdown of the potential costs for employers is as follows:
Sponsor’s licence - £1,476
Certificate of Sponsorship - £199
Potential Immigration Skills Charge - £1,000 (£364 for SMEs)
TOTAL - £2,675 (£2,039 for SMEs)
Visa costs sometimes met by employers
Entry clearance - £575
Leave to remain - £664
(Source: Simpson Millar LLP)
