Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Godfreys T-Bone Florentine steak and a jar of La Maison Maille black truffle mustard are a true match made in heaven to share with your lover this Valentine’s Day, as the extravagant dine-in meal launches in London, Picadilly.
Lovers rejoice this Valentine’s Day as cupid’s arrow has struck La Maison Maille and Godfreys butchers to create a pairing of culinary perfection. The gourmet French mustard brand and premium quality master butchers have created the ‘Be Maille’ Valentine package, which boasts one of the finest cuts of 60-day dry aged beef T-bone Florentine steak that has been sumptuously paired with a jar of hand pumped Maille black truffle mustard with Chablis white wine.
Renowned worldwide for its craft of luxury gourmet mustard and over 270 years of expertise, Maille firmly believes that the right condiment can truly define a meal. What’s more, the ‘Be Maille’ Valentine package steak isn’t just any steak; a free-range dry aged beef T-bone Florentine is exceptionally rare, and finding one that is 60-day dry aged is almost unheard of. Consequently, the expert husbandry and impeccable provenance lovingly contributes to the Florentine’s nickname as the ‘jewel of the steak world’.
Due to its extra depth of flavour and tender butter like texture, the T-bone steak may be quickly grilled or fried and most importantly for lovers, its extra thick cut creates an enormous double portion that is perfect to share with your partner. To top off the decadent show stopping meal, the Maille black truffle mustard will get your taste buds singing as its impeccable flavour notes harmonise beautifully with the magnificent steak. The French black truffles are sourced from Provence and are rich and intense in flavour and are perfectly balanced with the fruitiness of Burgundy’s elegant Chablis wine which creates a unique and mouth-watering flavour.
Furthermore, the French Dijon mustard seeds are cut, not crushed, to give the mustard its exceptionally fine texture that will quite simply make your steak sing. The luxurious mustard is flecked with shavings of black truffle and is presented in an exclusive Valentine’s Day inspired red puce stoneware jar within sleek, black La Maison Maille boutique packaging.
Harry Lalousis, the world’s only mustard sommelier, said: “La Maison Maille use the highest quality and innovative ingredients to create astonishing flavours that help make meals memorable. The earthy and rich flavour of the black truffle mustard and its intense yet delicate aroma brings out a decadent flavour combination against the tender Florentine T-bone steak. Dijon is synonymous with the finest mustard you can buy, proving that this marriage of flavours is a true culinary love.”
Chris Godfrey, owner of Godfreys premium quality master butchers, said: “The 60 day dry aged Florentine is the embodiment of luxurious taste – making it a perfect partner for La Maison Maille mustard. Owing to its large size and its coupling of two of the most prized cuts of beef, the short loin and the tenderloin, the dry aged cut is one of the rarest and highest quality steaks available. Partnering the Florentine with the opulent flavour of the black truffle mustard creates a true culinary masterpiece that should be shared and enjoyed with the one you hold dearest this Valentine’s Day.”
For those who want a gastronomic evening like no other, and don’t want to compromise on luxury, expense or taste - cast aside overcrowded restaurants and supermarket deals this year and instead choose to spoil your other half with the ‘Be Maille’ Valentine package. Give in to your senses and succumb to this one-of-a-kind partnership that is available online and in-store at Godfrey’s until 14 February.
The limited edition Maille and Godfreys partnership is available on a first-come-first-served basis, with just 100 of the luxury packages available.
British tax-payers should not be asked to foot the Bill to set up an alternative to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) unless there are tangible benefits to the quality of justice, a Bar Council Brexit expert has told Peers as he warned against “reinventing the wheel.”
Giving evidence to the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, Hugh Mercer QC, Chair of the Bar Council Brexit Working Group said: “What are the costs? What are the benefits? Are we really going to invent something which costs tens if not 100s of millions of pounds in order to replace something when it isn’t broke? It works.”
As Peers prepare to scrutinise the EU (Withdrawal) Bill later this month, Mercer also busted the myth that the CJEU has direct jurisdiction over UK courts.
He said that many people have “misunderstood the nature of the CJEU.”
“The CJEU is not a Supreme Court. The CJEU's job is to work with national courts and to provide assistance on the meaning of EU law, not to decide cases or in any way to act as a Court of Appeal.”
Mercer also warned that individuals and small businesses will find it hard to uphold their rights if future trade deals and treaties with the EU 27 do not have ‘direct effect’ which would allow them to enforce treaty obligations in domestic courts. The alternative for a small UK business which has, for example, been unfairly taxed by the French Government, would be to lobby the UK Government to take action on its behalf.
The “cumbersome” political mechanism of one Government taking action against another on behalf of a small business or individual would, in rule of law terms, be “a retrograde step”, he said.
Arguing for the retention of the General Principles of EU law, such as non-discrimination, Mercer gave the example of post-Brexit UK and French ministers both making the same decision in relation to an EU regulation which is also part of retained EU law. While the decision in France could be challenged on the basis of the General Principles, the decision in the UK could not.
Hugh Mercer QC said: “That is a clear down-grading of rights. That is trying to isolate the Government from judicial review and reduce access to justice at the cost of individuals and businesses.”
(Source: The Bar Council)
Kate Gardner, Partner in the HR and Employment team at national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP, looks at the Tesco equal pay claim and what it could mean for employers across the UK.
Last week’s news that Tesco may have to pay enormous sums of compensation for failure to provide equal pay for women employed in their stores has caused great concern for employers across the UK.
Since the introduction of the Equality Act in 2010 and the subsequent requirement of gender pay cap reporting, substantial claims have been brought against several large employers in this country.
Could this affect your business?
In 2016 an Employment Tribunal ruled that over 9,000 women working at Asda on checkouts could compare themselves to the higher paid men working in the warehouses. Although Asda is currently appealing the ruling, that still stands.
Therefore, it may no longer be the case that because men and women are undertaking different roles, you as an employer are able to justify paying men more than women. In the Tesco case, the checkout workers are arguing that their job is of equal value to that of the men who have previously claimed they work harder in the warehouses. These women claim that they deal with customers and that is equally demanding mentally and comparable to the physical hard work of handling and loading stock.
But what does the law say?
The Equality Act seeks to define work of equal value. The Tesco workers’ argument could succeed that even though the jobs the men and women are doing are different, they are equal in terms of demands made on that particular worker and therefore should be given equal value.
The Tesco workers argue that the only reason for the pay difference remains a gender reason; historically and continuously the women have been paid and continue to be paid less than the men.
My view is that this is the time to carry out a stringent job evaluation study in your business. You can no longer rely upon a defence that your workers may be carrying out different roles if there is a bias in one area of your business for women to carry out a particular job .For example on a checkout or in the office whilst more men are involved in a more physical role.
Since 4th April 2017 all businesses with over 250 employees have been required to publish their gender pay gap reports. That pay gap will be based on a snapshot of ordinary pay and bonus pay during the previous 12 months. Hence we have seen all of the reported scandal at the BBC and the subsequent significant changes in pay at that institution.
In time it is proposed that all employers will be required to prepare gender pay reports.
This means that you may already or will need to report on the percentage differences in hourly pay, bonuses and other remuneration packages between male and female employees on a snapshot date.
So the message is clear from this Tesco case, all employers need to consider their work force and their pay arrangements.
Who owns the property next to you? The answer could be more surprising than you think. An investigation by an anti-corruption group has found that nearly 38,000 properties in London are owned by offshore companies. Critics are now concerned about the number of properties not registered in the UK and say it's sometimes used as a method to launder money. Tolu Adeoye reports.
Russian athletes may not be able to compete in this year’s Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Olympics. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) banned Russia from participating because of doping violations.
Recent reports indicate the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed an appeal by 47 Russian athletes and coaches against a ban on participation in the Winter Olympics.
Jessica van der Meer, sport law barrister at civil and commercial chambers 2 Temple Gardens had this to say: "The CAS decision reflects a willingness to support the IOC objective of clean sport, potentially to the detriment of ‘clean’ individual Russian athletes.
"The CAS decision, which had to determine whether there was any basis for the IOC’s refusal to invite Russian athletes, is in some ways, a judicial review of the IOC’s method for determining which athletes are able to take part in the competition.
"The Court found that the invitation process, guidelines and criteria set up by the IOC to determine which athletes were ‘clean’ and would therefore be invited, were not inherently discriminatory or unfair.
"For the CAS to acknowledge that its decision had the potential to sanction individual Russian athletes on the sole basis of their citizenship but to stress that it had to balance this risk against the IOC’s objective of achieving ‘clean’ Olympics reflects the emphasis put on the fight against doping by the Court.
"The Russian Olympic Committee has yet to rebut the evidence of systematic manipulation of the anti-doping rules and system in Russia."
Despite the IOC banning Russian athletes, over 100 fans dressed in red, white and blue made themselves very vocal in the Gangeung Ice Arena. These fans were cheering the "Olympic athletes of Russia" (OAR), who compete as neutrals, and not nationals. However, the IOC's ban clarifies that OARs must respect a strict code of conduct and "refrain from any public form of publicity, activity and communication associated with the national flag, anthem, emblem and symbol" at any Olympic site.
With the Global Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) coming into force across the European Union on May 25th, businesses should be well underway in their efforts to achieve compliance. However, meeting the demands of GDPR is easier said than done and a substantial proportion of businesses are still showing a worrying lack of preparedness. Andrew Lintell at Tufin advises below on steps to take.
According to a study released in July by Spiceworks, just 5% of IT pros in the UK and 2% in the US believe their companies are fully prepared for the regulations.
With fines up to a maximum of €20 million or 4% of a company's annual global revenue on the table, failing to comply with the legislation could be disastrous.
There are multiple explanations for this apparent complacency. In many cases limited C-suite support and a lack of knowledge or awareness are holding organisations back, while some simply don’t think the regulations will affect them.
But a key issue that many businesses are also struggling to cope with is the hugely complex, and difficult to manage, nature of modern networks, which now typically incorporate multiple databases and a growing number of network devices that constantly manage potentially sensitive data.
All of this means multitudes of businesses are putting themselves at risk of being hit by substantial fines, as well as reputational damage and a potential loss of customers. The new regulation also holds individuals personally responsible, highlighting that compliance may not be sexy, but if you get it wrong it certainly has big teeth.
One mistake many organisations also make is viewing compliance as a destination rather than an ongoing journey. A common pitfall is that businesses only worry about passing an audit and, once the audit is over, compliance gets relegated from being a priority to an afterthought, resulting in a stark reality that many businesses are barely surviving from one audit to the next.
In a GDPR world, that mindset simply won’t be good enough. Cybercriminals – and compliance authorities – will be ready to pounce at the slightest sign of complacency, so businesses of all sizes need to ensure that compliance is viewed as a constant process rather than a single point in time.
Keep it simple
With business networks constantly growing and data flowing across an ever-larger environment, keeping track of all the moving parts can be a significant challenge.
Therefore, when it comes to GDPR, the first business challenge should be to tackle complexity head-on, by increasing visibility and gaining a strong sense of all the moving parts of the network.
Data mapping is an important part of this process. By mapping the network – and ensuring it is regularly updated – businesses get a clear view of how data flows through the company. This addresses several important concerns, such as knowing where sensitive customer information resides, how it is being used and who has access to it, all of which are central components of GDPR compliance.
Mapping the network also helps to maintain security policy compliance by enabling businesses to easily identify all their network traffic across different applications and services, based on actual usage.
Once everything has been mapped, network segmentation can then be applied to ensure that only the appropriate network zones or user groups have access to specific types of data, which helps to keep customer information safe in the event of a data breach.
But, key to everything is having a centralised tool to manage network security policies and streamline all future changes made to the network. Policies are put in place to ensure that businesses operate in line with regulatory standards and are especially important when it comes to effectively managing large quantities of data.
By incorporating a centralised policy management tool, security and compliance can be simplified and IT teams can enjoy a greater level of control over the environment.
Continuous compliance
When GDPR comes around, making sure doors to corporate networks remain locked will be key to ensuring compliance – and automation can significantly reduce the amount of effort required.
When it comes to achieving continuous compliance, there are several different ways in which policy-driven automation is a central component. For example, with networks being more dynamic than ever before, carrying out regular reviews of existing rules and policies is essential, but also an extremely tedious task to do manually. Automated tools are able to identify high-risk or redundant rules in a fraction of the time and with a greater degree of accuracy.
This also applies to provisioning new policies, which must comply with GDPR requirements without adversely impacting any existing rules. Again, this is a complicated and time-consuming task, the burden of which can be drastically reduced through an automated approach that maintains compliance without the risk of human error. Any policy violations will be flagged and resolved in real-time, thereby significantly streamlining operations. Life is also made easier for future inspections, as automated actions are constantly recorded and documented for auditing purposes.
Furthermore, the so-called ‘ripple effect’ where a minor change to one policy causes a vulnerability in another area of the corporate network is a very real danger. Automated policy management solves this issue by providing network-wide visibility and designing optimised new rules based on real-time analysis of existing rules, thus avoiding the ripple effect. Most importantly, business leaders can feel reassured the whole network meets regulatory standards.
Maintaining GDPR compliance 24-7-365 is no mean feat and businesses need all the help they can get. Through an automated approach, risks and vulnerabilities can be proactively identified and resolved across even the most complicated network environment, ensuring compliance all year round.
Time may be in short supply, but it’s still not too late for businesses to start putting their GDPR plans into action and turning compliance into a valuable competitive advantage.
The total value of fraud has risen 538% to £2.11bn in the last 15 years and is up 6.5% from £1.99bn in 2016, according to new research from BDO LLP.
When it comes to type of fraud, BDO’s FraudTrack report found 550 cases of UK fraud were tax-related and the reported value of these cases ranged from £58k to £21m. The most interesting cases included a businessman who stole more than £1.6m in tax whilst pretending to his family and friends to be a spy, and a self-appointed Essex tax adviser, who instructed his clients on how to fraudulently claim £1.5m in tax repayments.
London and the South East remains the biggest hotspot for fraud in the UK in 2017 with the number of cases up by almost 30% to 176, and the total value increasing by 76.9% to £1.63bn. One of the biggest frauds in this area included a family of VAT scammers who stole £45m from taxpayers and lavished it on a fleet of luxury cars, race horses, gambling trips to Las Vegas and mansions around the world. The findings also highlighted a number of instances where celebrities have either been victims of fraud. One of the biggest celebrity-related frauds was a £100m tax scam in which 730 celebrities, including comedians, sports stars and relatives of politicians, were conned into believing they were investing in cutting-edge research and development reforestation projects in Brazil and China.
Dawn Register, Tax Dispute Resolution Partner at BDO, commented: “Recent HMRC statistics revealed that in 2017 their specialist tax fraud investigations have led to over 750 individuals being convicted and they have charged suspects in over 1,000 new cases of tax fraud. HMRC clearly wants to investigate and convict tax fraudsters using their full range of powers. This is both to act as a deterrent for others and to penalise those who contribute to the tax shortfall in the UK. Anyone thinking that they will never get caught is living a deluded life. The information and resources available to HMRC are robust as never before.”
(Source: BDO LLP)
Brexit raises many issues in almost every legal field and family law is certainly no exception. Alex Critchley is a Solicitor in the Family Law Team at Morton Fraser. He regularly advises on issues of international jurisdiction in family cases, and below discusses the potential prospects of family law post-Brexit.
The term reciprocity will seem obscure to many non-lawyers but it is of crucial importance when considering what mechanism the UK seeks to employ to deal with jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in international family law cases when the UK leaves the EU.
The concept of reciprocity addresses the issue of how other EU member states will react, first, to ongoing court proceedings in the British courts and, secondly, to judgements of British courts, including decrees of divorce.
It has been suggested that the current mechanism, known as the Brussels II bis Regulation, for regulating questions of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in some family law matters be transposed into UK law.
The problem is that if the UK does this, but other remaining EU member states no longer recognise us as being a 'Member State' then, among other things, there may be a situation where a UK court will recognise ongoing proceedings in Germany, but the German court will not necessarily recognise ongoing proceedings in the UK.
Under the current rules, when a person is divorced in the UK, that divorce is entitled to automatic recognition in Germany. Equally, when a German court grants a divorce, it is entitled to automatic recognition in the UK. This is because the Brussels II bis Regulation provides that judgements of Member State courts are recognised without further procedure. However, when the UK leaves the EU, Germany will again require that British divorces are subject to a recognition procedure (known as an Anerkennungsverfahren). However, the UK would still recognise German, Italian and French divorces without further procedure.
This is not a great outcome. We do not want a situation which does not provide reciprocity. The problem is that whether a German court recognises British court judgements is really something that the UK Government has little control over, unless a treaty can be negotiated to regulate matters.
The mind boggles at the other numerous issues that could arise.
Indeed, there are numerous difficulties that can arise even between different parts of the UK when matters haven't been carefully thought through. Last year, for instance, it was recognised that there was a lack of a statutory mechanism to register and enforce an English order placing a child in secure accommodation in Scotland.
The difficulty is that some issues, especially matters involving children, require swift action. Where British and EU authorities have expedited procedures for dealing with intra-EU cases, these procedures may fall away and cases will be dealt with more slowly by all countries concerned.
There are old rules dealing with matters that can potentially be re-introduced to deal with matters currently dealt with under Brussels II bis. For example, where there were competing ongoing EU cases in the past, UK courts could resort to a common law doctrine called 'forum non conveniens'. However, this doctrine requires the court to consider which court is most 'convenient' to hear the dispute and this is a costly exercise to undertake. This discretionary doctrine has produced copious appeals, adding significant expense and time to already potentially ruinous divorce cases. For all the problems that the EU's 'first in time' rule has, including the race to raise proceedings, the rule has the advantage of being clear.
Whatever view one has of Brexit, the issue of reciprocity cannot be ignored. Either it should be agreed that the Brussels II bis Regulation continues to apply to the UK, with mutual recognition with other EU Member States, or we need to think – (quickly) - about new legislation.
A copy and paste job will not work here. One possibility is replicating the Brussels II bis Regulation with a similar mechanism to the Lugano Convention, which allows for reciprocal enforcement in non-family commercial and civil cases in non-EU EEA states. This is a framework that could operate outside of the EU if there was the required political will. Time is getting short for getting matters resolved.
It may be that where there are holes in existing rules, we may have to look at developing our own rules for jurisdiction in family actions sooner than we like. If we do, then we need to make sure that these rules are well thought out and work efficiently. Perhaps it may also give us an opportunity to re-think some of the tricky jurisdiction issues that still exist between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
Pro bono is derived from the Latin term pro bono publico which can be translated as ‘for the public good’. In a professional and legal capacity, lawyers provide free legal services to members of the public who are unable to pay. Below Francine Ryan, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University, confronts the question as to whether these kinds of services should be mandatory.
In recent times, it has been argued that pro bono should be a requirement of professional practice. In some jurisdictions, such as South Africa and parts of the US, it is a mandatory obligation, all applicants to the New York Bar must complete a minimum of 50 hours pro bono work. In England and Wales, pro bono is a voluntary commitment, which is encouraged by the regulatory bodies of the legal profession. The National Pro Bono Centre is a charity created in 2010 and acts as a clearing house for pro bono work. Each of the bodies has a charity which supports free legal advice assistance – the Bar Pro Bono Unit (for barristers), LawWorks (for solicitors) and the CILEx Pro Bono Trust (for Chartered Legal Executives).
Pro bono is not a substitute for publicly funded legal services but there is increasing concern that expansion of pro bono encourages the state to allow pro bono work to fill the gap of unmet legal need. The introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed whole areas of legal aid funding which has led to a significant rise in ‘unmet legal need’. Broadly speaking, this is when an individual’s capacity to seek legal assistance is restricted because they cannot afford to pay for legal services.
So does the crisis in funding mean we should consider making pro bono mandatory?
The legal profession in the UK has a long tradition of providing pro bono services voluntarily. Making pro bono compulsory changes the nature of the relationship and the motivation of those providing that advice. Some would argue that public funding of legal services is a fundamental obligation of the state and essential to ensuring the rule of law. Therefore, replacing it with the goodwill of voluntary lawyers and law students is extremely problematic. Law is quite unique as no other profession has the same commitment and requirement to provide free services, for example, there does not appear to be a culture of pro bono dental work!
Rather than imposing a minimum number of pro bono hours, promoting a culture of pro bono at University encourages law students to continue volunteering in professional practice. Offering pro bono services is a key contribution that lawyers and law students can provide to support access to justice. There are compelling reasons for law students to volunteer in law clinics and participate in public legal education activities. The opportunity to work with real clients is an invaluable experience and provides a rich environment to develop practice-ready skills. A commitment to pro bono is an important way a law student can distinguish themselves in a highly competitive legal market.
The proposed changes to the way in which solicitors qualify has the potential to add further value to law students supporting pro bono, by replacing the training contract with a period of two years legal work experience. This makes it possible that volunteering in a law clinic will count towards that time period. We are seeing an increase in the number of partnerships between law schools and pro bono organisations, allowing law students to take advantage of a myriad of opportunities. These bring to life what is being learned in the classroom and at the same time giveback to those in need and support local communities.
Embedding pro bono and a commitment to social justice within the law curriculum is an important step towards ensuring pro bono extends beyond law school, but relying on ‘mandatory’ volunteering is not the answer to our access to justice crisis. The legal profession and law students should rightly be proud of their commitment to pro bono. The rush to provide free legal services in the wake of a number of tragedies that affected so many people in cities like Manchester and London is evidence of the desire to help those in need. Pro bono is an important part of being a lawyer but it should remain a choice- the challenge to law students is to think of innovative ways of delivering pro bono to engage more of the profession in providing free legal services.
Below Alison Conley, Head of Retail & Consumer at MHA MacIntyre Hudson, explains some of the prospects for UK retailers at either side of the Brexit deal outcome.
The sums at stake for retailers as a result of Brexit are huge. With the value of UK imports from the EU and the rest of the world totalling £590.5 billion*, the threat of the import tariff post-Brexit means UK retailers must re-examine their supply chains and scrutinise their product portfolio.
Post Brexit, UK retailers reliant on imports will face challenges of ‘revolutionary’ proportions. The introduction of the import tariff in the absence of a free or fair trade deal with the EU will likely prompt many UK retailers to make drastic changes to their business operations and look for innovative ways to respond to changing consumer habits.
For some of the biggest UK food retailers, the imposition of an average 22% tariff would mean that top selling consumables such as vegetables, berries and clothing could suffer from a drastic change in consumer perception of ‘essential goods.’
Free from the parental guidance of the European Customs Union, the UK would be able to alter the tariffs on goods. Nonetheless, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would insist that the UK didn’t discriminate between trade partners, unless a free trade agreement was in place or the aim was to give developing countries special access to the UK market. The UK would have to impose tariffs on all of its trade partners, including the EU, causing the price of imports in the UK to increase significantly.
Tariffs could be reduced or done away with, particularly for goods not normally produced in the UK, but in reality we’re yet to see what the cost implications will then be for the British consumer. Movements in the exchange rate and trade tariff changes could quickly affect the cost of obtaining imported goods. The increased cost will naturally filter into the prices charged to the retail consumer and domestic producers may, in turn, increase their prices in response. With all of this potential competition, the British consumer will need to be the top priority when the UK retailer assesses their pricing strategy.
Major UK retailers could adopt temporary measures post-Brexit, absorbing the increase in import charges to protect their market share from the likes of Amazon. The twists and turns of tactical ‘retail poker’ among retailers could be endless and the introduction of import tariffs will revolutionise trading relationships beyond our wildest imaginings.
The ‘Brexit Revolution’ could herald positive outcomes for the UK retailer as Britain could be better placed to enter trade agreements with countries such as China and the United States, to date an elusive prospect for the EU. Nevertheless, the UK retailer will need to abandon any leanings towards short-termism and embrace the long-term by:
