Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Trailsuite Limited provides a market-leading software solution that supports hospitality and other businesses to manage and simplify their operations. The software company was sold to Access UK Limited in a deal that gave investors a significant return on their investments.
Simon Thomas, managing director of the commercial division at Clarke Willmott, led on the deal for Clarke Willmott and also provided legal advice for co-founders Joe Cripps and Wil Grace when the company formed in 2014.
Simon Thomas said: “It was fantastic to see this client come full circle. We started working with Trailsuite at its very conception, forming the company, putting in place the initial shareholder agreements and assisting with initial rounds of investment. Since then we have provided ongoing advice to the business on various matters including employment, IP and commercial contract issues.
“When it came to the sale the key challenge was the logistics of dealing with nearly 60 different selling shareholders in multiple jurisdictions, including some German and Luxembourg based funSoftds who were advised by lawyers in California. The time difference certainly posed some challenges at the closing stages and the logistics of getting over 50 sellers signed up to the deal was a significant exercise in its own right.
“We were pleased to get an excellent outcome for the Founders and long-standing investors and wish them all the best of luck in their next ventures.”
Trail is an app predominantly used in hospitality and leisure which allows businesses to run a paperless workplace with checklists, record logs, and integrations. Thousands of businesses use Trail every day for covid checks, food hygiene, and general operations. Access UK Limited, the Buyer, will add Trail to the Access Group’s hospitality division.
Joe Cripps, joint founder of Trail, commented: “We have worked with Simon and his team at Clarke Willmott right from the start of Trail, through several rounds of fundraising and on a wide range of other legal needs. We were therefore delighted to work with Simon again when it came to the sale of our business - something very close to our hearts.
“Simon and his team delivered exceptional service; we felt that he was really looking out for us as well as keeping the deal moving in a practical and pragmatic way throughout. I would have no hesitation in working with Simon again and would thoroughly recommend him and Clarke Willmott to others looking to develop and sell their business.”
In light of this, Sylvie Gallage-Alwis, Partner at the Paris office of specialist disputes law firm Signature Litigation, explains that the call at European level for anxiety claims to be recognised and have a general liability regime should be of great concern for companies doing business in the EU.
As highlighted in previous articles on this topic, the anxiety damage (“fear of cancer”) seemed to be a French specificity up until now, especially when it came to the easiness for plaintiffs to be granted damages. Following a landmark decision dated 11 May 2010, the French Supreme Court created a case law whereby workers of sites recognised by the French Government as having used asbestos in a significant manner benefit from a triple presumption: (i) they are anxious, (ii) their employer did not comply with asbestos-related obligations and (iii) there is a causal link. Businesses doing business in France that had used asbestos or that inherited from sites where asbestos was used were almost automatically condemned.
Given the number of companies that filed bankruptcy and the fact that the former Presiding Judge of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court admitted that this case law was tantamount to the opening of Pandora’s box (as there is thankfully a higher number of workers who did not develop a disease as opposed to the ones who did), one could have thought that this case law would remain very limited in scope and concern France only.
Recent events show that it will likely not be so and that our warning that French case law should be monitored as it could be applied to substances other than asbestos and in other jurisdictions than France seems to be appropriate.
As for the latter, on 15 July 2021, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety issued an opinion for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs with recommendations to the European Commission on protecting workers from asbestos on the grounds that “asbestos remains one of the most significant occupational health challenges and that 125 million people worldwide have been exposed to asbestos in the workplace” and that “approximately 250,000 people die each year as a result of asbestos exposure”.
While bearing in mind that “16 European countries still use asbestos, particularly as a building material, and continue to produce and export it”, the Committee published numerous recommendations, including the following:
These recommendations are a clear push to implement, in all Member States, a legal regime that facilitates the compensation of plaintiffs, including the anxiety damage which should be recognised everywhere.
Furthermore, in its opinion, the Committee highlights some health issues that it would like the Commission to monitor, such as the effect of asbestos on the environment (wildlife & vegetation), on children and on water. Based on the sensitivity of such potential exposures, if science confirms such health and environmental risks, massive litigation throughout the EU will be initiated, including on the grounds of anxiety, and companies will be requested to take numerous steps to contain these risks.
As for the scope of the anxiety damage, on 5 April 2019, the Supreme Court extended the anxiety damage to all employees of all sites operating in France, irrespective of whether they are listed by the French Government as having used asbestos in a significant manner (no. 18-17.442).
But more importantly, on 11 September 2019, it ruled that the loss relating to anxiety could be claimed by any worker exposed to a "harmful or toxic substance" (nos. 17-24.879 to 17-25.623). At the same time, the loss relating to anxiety was also recognised in the scope of litigation involving health products, i.e., in a scope other than the employer/employee relationship. Its application further appeared in environmental, consumer, industrial accidents and loss or misappropriation of personal data cases. It has even given rise to the concept of “eco-anxiety”, namely anxiety related to climate change.
In light of the above, it is now clear that there is a significant risk for companies doing business in France that the case law that has emerged a decade ago in France, relating to the fear of cancer, extends not only in scope (so as not to be limited to asbestos exposure) but also territorially (to end up being recognised in all EU Member States). In order to get ready for such litigation, experience shows that companies need to: (i) gather all data they had on their HSE measures, per hazardous substance used, (ii) collect data on potential diseases developed by their workers, (iii) conduct a review of the protective equipment available on their sites, (iv) further inform their workers on the hazardous substances they may be exposed to and (v) know the number of workers who are exposed to hazardous substances so as to anticipate the pool of potential plaintiffs.
As the foremost professional membership body for paralegals in the UK, NALP has gained an insight into how its members have fared during the pandemic. It is clear that those in the first scenario, working within the legal sector, have been worst hit. Solicitors have long held the view that paralegals are no more than law graduates unable to find a training contract and willing to take on paralegal roles in the hope of being given the opportunity to apply for that elusive contract and qualify as solicitors. This is the reality for many, and as such, they are the most expendable. Unfortunately, a number of paralegals in that position have now lost their roles and are drifting towards the next scenario, working in-house.
Despite this, some law firms have had the foresight to see the benefit of keeping their paralegals on during lockdown in order to offer legal assistance at a lower cost to those clients who have suffered financially during this period. Paralegals working in-house seem to have fared better than those working in law firms. Companies employing paralegals have kept them on through the furlough scheme and are now utilising their services to assist in recovery from the financial hardships of lockdown. But not all paralegals want to become solicitors, and those that have decided to branch out and become independent paralegal practitioners with a Licence to Practise, have fared best of all.
Even prior to the pandemic and lockdown, consumers were starting to realise the benefit of seeking the assistance of a paralegal rather than going directly to a solicitor. Since 2013 when legal funding (‘legal aid’) was virtually eradicated for all but the most urgent cases, consumers have found it difficult to afford the services of a solicitor. With solicitors’ fees being anywhere from £250 - £600 per hour, it’s understandable that this is beyond the pockets of most. Whereas fees charged by paralegals may range from £30-£80 per hour dependent on the nature of the work. Making the choice is not rocket science. Paralegals have certainly taken up the slack left by the withdrawal of legal aid.
The argument that the role of paralegals is different to that of solicitors and, therefore, it should be one that is ‘less professional’ since it is not a statutorily regulated profession or that paralegals are not trained in the same way, is old hat. It is true that they are not solicitors, but that is the whole point. Solicitors have a prescribed pathway of training and qualification, and because they are so heavily regulated, they must charge their clients fees accordingly. However, even though paralegals are not statutorily regulated, they do have a prescribed pathway, and this is especially the case if they wish to become licensed and offer services directly to the consumer or to businesses. In order to gain a Licence to Practise, paralegals are heavily scrutinised. They must have a minimum recognised legal qualification and a certain number of years’ proven legal experience/competency before they can be considered. Plus the fact that they must have professional indemnity insurance and adhere to rules of ethics and practice. So, at the end of the day, except for reserved legal activities, why can’t they perform many of the tasks that solicitors do? They may well have the same level of competency, (perhaps higher, since it is likely that they have specialist knowledge rather than general practice knowledge)? The Law is the Law in whatever way it is studied. Relevant legal experience is the same for a graduate completing a training contract as it is for a paralegal wishing to gain practitioner status.
Consumers and businesses are realising that utilising the services of paralegals can be of great financial benefit to them. Paralegals can offer legal assistance in a wide variety of ways without charging the earth.
Paralegals that are independent licensed practitioners are the ones that have benefitted most from the pandemic. Indeed they appear to be thriving in an environment that has caused many consumers and businesses severe hardship. Many are trying to get back on their feet since lockdown has been lifted, and whether it be employment cases or debt collections or mediation, approaching paralegals for assistance is undoubtedly the most financially viable choice in such circumstances.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Amanda Hamilton is Chief Executive of the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP), a non-profit Membership Body and the only Paralegal body that is recognised as an awarding organisation by Ofqual (the regulator of qualifications in England). Through its Centres, accredited recognised professional paralegal qualifications are offered for a career as a paralegal professional.
Twitter: @NALP_UK
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NationalAssocationsofLicensedParalegals/
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-hamilton-llb-hons-840a6a16/
However, Endo said that the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by Endo or its subsidiaries.
The settlement will remove Endo from an ongoing trial in lawsuits by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Suffolk and Nassau counties, though claims against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and AbbVie Inc remain unresolved.
The deal, which excludes Dublin-based Endo, came shortly after McKesson Corp, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and Johnson & Johnson all agreed to move forward with a proposed national settlement of $26 billion to resolve opioid cases against them.
A lawyer for Nassau County, Hunter Shkolnik, said he was pleased that the deal could provide his clients with closure while simultaneously keeping Endo out of bankruptcy.
Back in July, Endo paid out $35 million to settle a lawsuit by Tennessee local governments on behalf of a child allegedly born addicted to painkillers. The Tennessee local governments had accused the pharmaceutical company of fueling the opioid epidemic.
Anna Rogers, Senior Partner and specialist pensions lawyer at Arc Pensions Law examines this updated guidance and notes that, when it comes to GMP equalisation on past transfers, the new PASA guide explains the complexity of the situation well.
The pensions world continues to be rocked by legal developments that must look, at best, obscure to the non-specialist. Rulings relating to Lloyds Banking Group staff pension schemes have caused industry-wide despair and frustration as the Courts seem to require impossible rewriting of history at an administration cost that will far outweigh the increased payments to members. The industry has been pondering how to address the widespread recalculations that we now know are required for members with benefits accrued in the 1990s, often without adequate historical data records. The latest twist of the knife was the 2020 ruling that schemes have to top-up transfer payments they made over the last 30 years in order to make usually very small adjustments for legacy equalisation issues.
By way of background, explicit age and sex discrimination are deeply embedded in defined benefit (DB) pension schemes. Counter-intuitively to outsiders, many aspects of the traditional benefit design discriminated against men. Women lived longer on average and they could retire earlier. That meant £1 of pension was more valuable to a woman. The ECJ ruled in 1990 that pensions were pay. Since then, the industry has struggled with the move to equality against a background of rising costs due to increasing guarantees and reducing investment returns. The solution has largely been to level down but progress has been ‘non-linear’. It took too long to realise what was needed to level down validly. Most of the issues are now well understood and men and women are in general treated equally. There are still pockets of permitted discrimination; many schemes still use sex as a basis for placing actuarial value on benefits, which has been outlawed in insurance.
There is however an intractable sex discrimination issue regarding GMPs. It affects schemes that contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme between 1990 and its abolition in 1997 (most schemes did). The SERPS pension accrued at a faster rate for women and was payable at 60 rather than 65. Contracted out schemes had to provide a guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) to replace it. Case law shows that the statutory GMP is what it is, and can’t be equalised, but if the overall scheme pension would be different for a man and a woman the higher must be paid. In other words, the discriminatory effect of the GMP inequality has to be eliminated. It’s not obvious how to do this. The female GMP may be bigger or smaller than the male GMP depending on a number of circumstances about the member and the scheme. That can change during the course of retirement. And the really tricky part is that having a bigger GMP might be a good thing or a bad thing.
A bigger GMP might result in a smaller overall pension. Don’t ask.
Fortunately, the Pensions Administration Standards Association is on the case. Its broad membership covers administrators, actuaries and pension lawyers across the industry who have put in a lot of work to produce guidance on GMP equalisation over recent years. The Group has updated its guidance to address the Lloyds 2020 judgment, looking at the role of trustees who made and received transfers. PASA warned that a number of uncertainties remain that, because of the associated costs and the relatively small sums involved for members, may never be settled by the courts. Although the guidance does a good job of explaining the difficulties that schemes may be facing, and the issues they and their advisers should take into account, it can’t offer any simple solutions, rightly emphasising the need for legal advice.
In practice, it will be necessary for consensus views to develop. Few schemes have so far taken any action. Some DB schemes are going to have to find solutions quite fast because they want to complete winding up. Calculations need to be done as best they can be and based on reasonable assumptions to fill in data gaps. Schemes that have done GMP equalisation for current members have a head start as they know the profile that makes a top-up likely based on their own benefit structure.
Where only a few ex-members need top-ups, it may be feasible to explore them case by case. It may be easy to pay the receiving arrangement; or impossible; or the situation may be unclear. The cost of tracing, getting authority, corresponding and agreeing with ex-member and receiving arrangement, and implementing the top-up if one can be made, can easily outweigh the amount of the top-up.
Ideally, schemes need a way to deliver fair compensation to the ex-member in a cost-effective manner that does not involve this unwieldy process. Unfortunately, the nature of the paying scheme’s obligation is unclear, as is the nature of any entitlement the receiving arrangement may have to receive the top-up. The top-up is not a benefit, so tricky to validly commute, and it’s due to a third party not to the member. Getting a neat and tidy discharge is going to be a challenge.
The legal minefield is well set out in the guidance. Ultimately trustees will want to find pragmatic solutions but it’s hard to be pragmatic in a vacuum. It will be important for trustees to show they have engaged with the issues in good faith and done their best to resolve them. Trustees are not required to do the impossible. We saw once again in the recent Axminster case a Judge saying “what is required is a rational and proportionate response to the administrative difficulties”.
It’s time for the first movers to find ways to protect both members and trustees. With all the brainpower available across the pensions industry, hopefully market solutions will soon emerge.
Northwestern University had accused Mitsubishi of infringing patents related to collaborative robots that can safely interact with humans in a shared workspace. Northwestern University says its professors Michael Peshkin and Edward Colgate invented these collaborative robots, known as “cobots” for short.
According to a court document filed on Tuesday, the university also settled related claims from a separate suit against Yaskawa Electric. Germany-based KUKA AG and Japan-based Fanuc Corp were also sued by Northwestern for allegedly infringing the same cobot patents, but these lawsuits remain ongoing.
In total, four companies were sued by the university in February as it claimed that they infringed patents related to Peshkin’s and Colgate’s inventions. Northwestern says cobots are able to help human operators with industrial tasks and, unlike other industrial robots, cobots can work alongside humans safely. Peshkin and Colgate’s inventions have been labelled “groundbreaking”.
Mitsubishi Electric has denied that its robots infringed and argued that the patents were invalid.
Settling a car accident claim can be a lengthy, draining process. You cannot afford to make any mistakes that can delay or deny the claim settlement that you rightfully deserve. We share some of the most common but avoidable mistakes that can jeopardize your car accident claim.
It is wrong to fail to notify the police when you are involved in a car accident that results in losses you will file a claim for. If the other party involved in the accident tries to settle the matter without involving the police, never agree to this.
Police are trained to investigate the incident, gather evidence, identify witnesses, and even ascertain the cause of the accident. Their report is one of the invaluable resources that firms offering legal representation and insurance companies look into when processing your settlement claim.
If you are able to gather photographic evidence of the accident scene, your injuries, car damage, please do it. Take contact and insurance details of the other party involved in the accident and those of willing witnesses. The visual evidence and eyewitness testimony are hard to refute, and will significantly improve your chances for a successful settlement.
Sometimes, the shock and confusion of a car accident can make one underestimate their injuries and even downplay seeking medical attention. The adrenaline masks some pain, and it may take some time before certain injuries can manifest. Only a medical examination can detect them in a timely manner. Taking too long to seek medical attention after an accident may put your compensation claim at risk.
Insurance companies know that it is not a requirement for the victim to give a recorded statement about the accident, but they may still try to get one from you in case you say something that they can use against you later in your claim. Before agreeing to speak to the insurance company, always consult your personal accident attorney first.
Unless you are an accident attorney yourself, never take on an insurance firm for a claim by yourself. Insurance companies will always have experienced lawyers handling auto accident lawsuits, and an experienced auto accident lawyer understands the auto accident claim process and knows how best to navigate it for you.
Insurance companies are always looking for opportunities to maximize their profits. As such, most rush to offer victims a fast settlement moments after the accident happens. This is to shield themselves from expenses related to complications that may arise later as a result severe injuries suffered from the accident. Agreeing to an early final settlement before the extent of your injuries can be extensively reviewed by the professionals is settling for less.
Car accidents are relatively common but no less traumatic and stressful. Knowing what to do and what not to do should you find yourself in one can significantly affect your eligibility for compensation and the value of your claim. Play your part right, then leave the rest to an experienced car accident attorney to build a strong case and negotiate a reasonable settlement for you.
Lisa Pelling has been promoted to senior HR advisor, while Kelly Bevan has become the team manager in debt recovery, and Graham Richardson has been promoted to senior legal accounts executive.
Joining Nelsons in 2009, Lisa has 22 years of experience working in HR. She said: “I was drawn to the company by the development opportunities, both personally and as a team, as well as gaining further experience of working in the legal sector. I get huge satisfaction from helping others, be that supporting an employee with their development or resolving a resourcing issue.
“Moving forwards, I am looking forward to continuing the growth of the HR team. My main priorities will be supporting employees as they return to the office and the implementation of our agile working policy.”
Meanwhile, Kelly joined the firm in 2013 and has worked in debt recovery since 2002. She said: “I’ve always been aware of Nelsons’ brilliant reputation so, when the opportunity to work here presented itself, I jumped at the chance to join the team. The firm has been fantastic, especially during the past 18 months, it’s made me appreciate how important my co-workers are.
“I love the variety of my work and am incredibly excited for my new role. We’ve invested in a new case management system, which is going to transform the way the debt recovery team operates. It’s already showing huge potential and, when in full swing, it will really improve the service we are able to provide to our clients.”
Graham has been with Nelsons for the past three years, following ten years of experience with other law firms as well as in the wider accounts sector. He said: “After a short period away from an accounts role, I wanted to get back into doing what I enjoy most and be part of a forward-thinking firm with a great reputation.
“It's a great feeling when I know I have solved an issue and made someone’s day better. This promotion will enable me to continue improving my skill set and I’m looking forward to the added responsibility, as well as helping the team evolve as we emerge from the pandemic.”
Stewart Vandermark, chief executive of Nelsons, said: “Lisa, Graham and Kelly have a wealth of experience and have all shown great dedication, not only to Nelsons but to furthering their own personal development in their respective fields too. I am delighted to congratulate them all on their promotions.”
Personal injuries could be as commonplace as a vehicular accident, a slip and fall, food poisoning, or injury at your workplace but it could also be more complicated like medical malpractice, defective or unsafe products, or more serious disasters. Personal injury lawyers are trained to handle all these. Unexpected situations like these could force you to stop working either temporarily or permanently, and your medical bills could be piling up. This can be very stressful at a time when you need to focus on recuperating. You need the best personal injury lawyer you can afford who will look after your interests and get you the highest possible compensation amount.
Generally, your lawyer will try to settle your case out of court so you could collect compensation without having to go through the rudiments of court hearings. However, there are instances when the defendant stands firm and refuses to settle the amount you are asking for. Your lawyer may then decide that bringing your case to court is the only option. This will make you incur court-related costs.
To the ordinary person, ‘costs’ and ‘fees’ may seem interchangeable, but in the legal profession, these are not the same. Fees are what lawyers collect for handling a case. Unlike general legal cases where lawyers charge their clients an agreed fee based on hourly services, most personal injury lawyers only charge a ‘contingency fee’ -- if you do not win the case, they do not get their fee. However, because this is a risk borne by the personal injury lawyer, the fee percentage is usually on the high side, averaging around one-third of what the client collects. This percentage can go even higher if the case is brought to litigation.
Costs, on the other hand, refer to all other litigation-related expenses. Even if you end up not receiving the claims you filed for, and consequently, need not pay the lawyers’ fees, you still need to cover these costs. Here are some of the more common legal costs:
Court costs will often include the claimant’s filing fee, jurors’ daily stipend (in the event your case goes to trial), and costs to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant.
In some cases, there may be a need to call in an expert witness to give testimony. This expert will need to review your case, prepare a report, and testify during the trial. This can be fairly expensive. Simple cases could cost you a few thousand dollars while more complicated cases could run to the tens of thousands of dollars.
These would include copying and postage costs, travel expenses, legal research, and the preparation of trial exhibits. Cases that are resolved quickly can cost you only a few hundred dollars for this item but cases that run beyond a year can easily reach a few thousand dollars.
A deposition is a sworn, out-of-court testimony. Electronic recordings are often used these days but if a stenographer’s services are used, the time of the stenographer during the deposition, as well as the cost of transcribing it, will need to be paid.
Most of the time, medical records and police reports can be obtained free or at a minimal cost. However, for complicated cases requiring a private investigator or a researcher, these costs could rise significantly.
Deciding whether to go to court or not is a delicate balancing act. Try to go this route only if you have already exhausted all means to settle out of court. However, if litigation is the only option, a reputable personal injury law firm with a high success rate gives you the best chance of getting the compensation you deserve so you could start life again. Legal experts are always at hand to sit down and discuss these options with you.
Getting into any vehicular accident can be highly stressful, but it can be particularly traumatic if you were hit as a pedestrian. For many individuals who travel by foot, the roadways can be dangerous. You must be aware of what to do in the unfortunate event you have been struck by a vehicle. Here are some crucial steps you need to take to protect yourself and your legal rights.
If you are conscious, try to get out of the street and move to a safe location to avoid further accidents. Check yourself for injuries and call the emergency services immediately. However, if you are unconscious, the responsibility falls on the driver or to any witnesses. Remember that some injuries tend to manifest after a few days, so you should have yourself examined by a medical professional right away. Your medical records will also strengthen your legal case, so make sure that you obtain a complete medical evaluation even if you feel fine.
After calling the emergency services, the next step is to report it to the authorities. Call the police and make sure that you keep the driver and potential witnesses at the accident scene. Some drivers are reluctant to remain at the scene, and many of them might try to flee and run. In this case, make sure that you ask prospective witnesses to stay so they can recount their version of events to the police. Be careful of what you say, as anything you say can be used against you later on. Try to stay objective as possible when you explain your side of the story and keep your emotions in check. Ask to get a copy of the police report and ensure that all details are accurate. The police report is incredibly important once you file your claim, so you must ensure that everything is documented correctly.
According to legal experts, it is also essential that you get the contact information of potential witnesses, as their testimonies can be crucial to your future legal case. If you are physically able to, take photos or videos of the accident scene and check your surroundings. Scout the nearby establishments for surveillance cameras and take note of the weather conditions. Try to stay alert and list everything down on your phone, as you may not recall every detail later on. However, if you are seriously injured, ask a good samaritan to do this on your behalf. Keep the clothes you were wearing during the accident, as they could serve as evidence for your legal claim.
In addition, remember to exchange contact information with the driver. Get their name, address, phone number, license plate number, insurance information, and driver’s license number. Try to stay calm when talking to the other party, and never apologise or admit fault to anything as it could harm your case.
Pedestrian accidents are sad and inevitable realities of life. You must be aware of the necessary things you need to do to ensure that your rights and future are well-protected.
