Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The San Francisco federal court heard on Wednesday that Waymo, the self-driving subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., are asking for a payment of $2.6 billion for a single trade secret they claim was illegally acquired through an ex-employee.
Uber’s attorney, Bill Carmody made the disclosure during a session between the two companies to ascertain if the trial will begin next month. Waymo are asking the judge for more time to examine new evidence with Uber, contesting that their opponents are trying to delay the trial due to a lack of evidence.
The case stems from Uber’s acquisition of Otto, a self-driving lorry company masterminded by Anthony Levandowski following his departure from Google. Waymo asserted in an earlier case this year that Levandowski had downloaded over 14,000 proprietary design files from Google six weeks prior to his departure to set up Otto.
Otto was quickly acquired by Uber and Waymo have claimed that Uber have now used this information obtained illegally to develop its LiDAR circuit board which is used to aid the functionality of its own self-drive cars.
The case has already resulted in the dismissal of Levandowski, who had been at the forefront of Uber’s self-driving cars since Otto’s sale. Uber have claimed that they had no knowledge of the stolen confidential files and no technology from Waymo has made its way into their own cars.
The full amount of damages sought by Waymo has not yet been divulged, but given that the amount revealed by Carmody on Wednesday is only one of nine trade secrets allegedly stolen, it’s safe to assume the total figure will be well beyond $2.6 billion.
The trial was originally scheduled to begin on 10th October, however, Waymo are seeking a new start date of 5th December. The judge has yet to issue his ruling, but is expected to do so by 3rd October.
The US Senate has passed a new Defence bill authorising $700 Billion to support defence programs and combat operations both foreign and domestically. The Senate gathered on Monday and passed the all new Defence Bill 89-8 in the house with the bill receiving bi-partisan support.
Apart from the US budget, the Defence Bill constitutes the largest piece of legislation that the Senate tackles. In a departure from recent attempts to pass new laws, the bill was passed with almost unanimous support. Only five democrats and three Republicans refused to back the new statute.
The main reason for this appears to be the removal of the most contentious policy issues within the new bill that some senators were reportedly looking to contest, such as the banning of Transgender Troops and the delicate situation in North Korea. With the Senate unable to agree a deal to schedule in several proposed revisions, and therefore omitting these components, it removed the possibility of a heated debate on the Senate Floor and assured a smooth ride in passing this version of the bill.
There had been suggestions that the bill would leave out some of these issues when Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain openly stated his plan to support a free-standing bill which seeks to oppose the proposal of a Transgender ban in the US military last Friday. However, McCain backed the new Defence Bill in its current form stating on his website shortly afterwards: “For too long our nation has asked our men and women in uniform to do too much with far too little. ... We are gambling with the lives of the best among us, and we're now seeing the costs. This legislation is only part of the solution.”
The new Defence bill includes additional funding for:
In addition, the bill also includes increased personnel for both active duty and reserve forces alongside policies concerning personal benefits and potential compensation packages.
Crucially the bill also includes the banning of contract awards for certain providers such as the Russian backed Kaspersky Labs, which seems to be a direct result of the fallout from the suspected Russian interference in the US 2016 election despite the company’s protestation of innocence last week.
Although the new Defence Bill has been widely approved, with the most divisive elements yet to be resolved, there seems to be plenty of work ahead for lawmakers to settle the issues that have been excluded.
The new bill, which is being dubbed ‘The Freedom from Equifax Exploitation (FREE) Act’, aims to protect consumers during a data breach that may result in their data being compromised. The bill suggests amending the ‘Fair Credit Reporting Act to enhance fraud alert procedures and provide free access to credit freezes, and for other purposes’.
Warren has also pushed for further investigation into the company’s actions and has sent letters to Equifax, TransUnion and Experian to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), asking for information related directly to the leak and the ways in which it was handled. She has also written to the Government Accountability Office to request a thorough investigation into consumer data security. Warren stated she was, “troubled by this attack - described as 'one of the largest risks to personally sensitive information in recent years', and by the fact that it represents the third recent instance of a data breach of Equifax or its subsidiaries that has endangered American's personal information”.
The bill is another blow to Equifax who are still reeling from one of the largest data breaches in US history, resulting in 143 million people being left with un-protected data and are already under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission following pressure from Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer last week.
“It’s one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasances since Enron,” Schumer said, adding that the data breach and the treatment of Equifax customers was “disgusting”.
Equifax shares have plummeted since the data breach was announced, falling a further 2.4% last Thursday bringing the overall drop to 32%. Now it seems they may have to contend with a full-blown investigation from an agency they have tangled with in the past. In 2012 the company settled with the FTC regarding allegations that it had improperly sold consumers data who were behind on mortgage payments.
In a rare move, the FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan released an e-mail statement confirming the ongoing investigation, stating: “In light of the intense public interest and the potential impact of this matter, I can confirm that FTC staff is investigating the Equifax data breach”.
With both Senators backing these investigations and Schumer publicly stating that if Equifax do not take steps to increase protection for customers, the CEO and board may have no option but to resign. All in all, the company faces a turbulent time ahead.
Grand Hotel Excelsior Vittoria. So much to do in Sorrento: the seas are warm in late October and early November – Islands to hop to, 5 UNESCO world Heritage sites in striking distance, Vesuvius to discover, the winding roads to Ravello and Positano and glorious walking in cooler weather and without the crowds…
The Excelsior Vittoria is an award-winning luxury hotel in the heart of Sorrento. Set in a unique location overlooking the Gulf of Naples, this 5-star Luxury hotel offers comforts with personalised service:
From its top location with easy access to main archaeological areas: The Grand Dame of the Amalfi Coast, Positano, Capri, Napoli, Ischia, Rome, including beautiful boat excursions and shopping.
There is only one Excelsior Vittoria.
Built on the ruins of the Emperor Augustus' villa, with sweeping views over the Bay of Naples and out to Vesuvius, the hotel is set in wonderful gardens filled with lemon trees. Perched on the cliff, it’s in the heart of Sorrento - a pretty town with winding Roman streets, artisanal shops and great restaurants - and the hotel even has an art deco lift through the cliff to the fishing port below where the nets lie drying in the sun ....
A three-night stay during November on a B&B basis is offered by Citalia (01293 765066, www.citalia.com) from £853 per person – saving up to £445 per couple. The offer includes one free night, private transfers, return flights from London Gatwick with BA. Based on departures 3 November 2017.
With the impact of technology shaping every single aspect of our lives, we see the way in which it is beginning to impact politics. From Jeremy Corbyn, who represents the Labour Party in the UK, commenting on his opposition’s Facebook live video to challenge their views, all the way to algorithims affecting what stories certain people see; the impact of social media on politics is heavy, influential and some would argue, detrimental.
The EU have also recently announced they are funding to help tackle fake news; Proffesor Philip Howard is one of seven UK-based researchers who will receive top-up funding to create an online tool to assess suspicious social media accounts and counter fake news.
Prof Howard and his team are trying to shed light onto the ways politicians use online social networks and the world of political algorithms.
"The majority of young people these days get their political news over the social media," says Phil Howard, Professor of Internet Studies and ERC beneficiary at the Oxford Internet Institute. "It's very difficult to grow up without developing some political opinion that has been shaped by the content you see from your friends and family over a social network platform."
BCS, The Chartered Insitute for IT also report calls for digital democracy platform. They stated that the UK needs a purpose-built platform to allow a new culture of politics online.
‘Signal and Noise’ claims that society, and by default, elected representatives are increasingly influenced by social media. Whilst this potentially presents vast new opportunities for MPs, it also presents fundamental challenges as existing social media platforms are not tailored to politics.
Alex Krasodomski-Jones, a researcher at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media and author of the report explains: “As our lives have moved online, our politics has done the same. It's early days, but digital channels are already shaking up the current political system and will, in time, sweep it away entirely. The change hasn't been without its difficulties, and there are greater challenges to come. Effort is required - from political leaders, from technologists, and from those participating in digital politics - both to improve existing technology and, vitally, the culture of digital politics. A failure to prepare for these challenges will bring increasing disenfranchisement, decreasing faith in the political system and increasing anger. Embracing the opportunities could prove vital in revitalising our democracy in a time when it feels under threat.”
With some MPs struggling to handle the levels of abuse they receive online, while others avoid social media altogether, the current situation is unsatisfactory for politicians and citizens alike.
The report calls for a cross-party allegiance to work with existing social media platforms to improve their offerings, and establish a purpose-built platform to facilitate meaningful and effective political engagement online, and includes recommendations:
David Evans, Director of Policy at BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT adds: “As we move towards an increasingly digital society, and expectations of our politics and democracy change to match this, we must ensure that the technology we conduct our politics through is fit for the task.
Without doubt, online political engagement is here to stay. But at a time when we as a nation are being asked to consider potentially spending billions of pounds over many years to restore the physical environment of the Palace of Westminster, we are calling for a tiny fraction of that cost to be invested in building a ‘digital commons’ fit for purpose and fit for a 21st Century democracy.
With a General Election looming, there has never been a better time to give proper consideration to how the current situation for MPs can be improved, all in the aim of making IT better for society."
We begin to wonder if the information we receive is more biased, due to our search history and online activity; some argued that the Brexit result, alongside the election of President Trump was due to impartial exposure and citizens being unaware of the impact the opposition was having, due to only seeing reports based on what algorithms thought they would prefer to view.
This month’s Your Thoughts hears from Craig Johnson at Kagool, who shares his notion on how social media is impacting elections.
Written by Craig Johnson, Kagool
Recent statistics revealed by YouGov show that class is no longer a good predictor of voting behaviour. What used to be the dividing line between British voters is now rendered useless in determining the results, as age takes over as the new key predictor of voting intention in British politics.
The research also revealed that age is what drives people to vote, with older people far more likely to head to the polls than those in the 18-24 age bracket. However, this may not be news to some, as Brexit taught us a lot about the British public. One thing being, young people aren’t engaged in politics. It saw just 36% of 18-24 year olds turning out to the polls, with an ageing population making up the majority of the vote - which was sure to sway results.
The snap election recently called by Theresa May has seen vast amounts of support from MPs, with The House of Commons voting in favour of the poll by 522 votes to just 13 as the Prime Minister urged them to “trust the people”. And with recent stats revealing young people simply don’t turn out to vote, ‘trusting the people’ does not give a fair representation of what the entire country wants.
Historically, party campaigns have favoured an aging population. Traditional outreach such as door to door canvasing and television advertising still play a major role in gaining public support but these techniques will not appeal to the younger voter, and therefore will not be sustainable for much longer. If political parties want to see a younger generation taking to the polls and also voting in their favour – which can influence and overturn the outcome of a vote – they should begin thinking now about how to most effectively use digital marketing and personalisation to ensure they capture their younger audience. We at Kagool believe that the political party to get it right will win the election in 2020 and if they act fast, could in fact win June’s election, making 2017 our last ever offline election.
A prime example of not getting your marketing strategy right is the Brexit poll, which saw a lack of effective digital strategy put into place by both the leave and remain camps which arguably contributed heavily to the outcome. The traditional methods of canvassing did not capture the eye, or imagination, of generation X and potentially more importantly, did not inform them of the outcomes of not voting altogether. Of those young people that did vote, 75% elected to remain within the EU, contrary to the final result, showing just how important it is to make targeting this demographic a priority[1]. There is huge potential to use targeted digital marketing to influence an as yet, relatively untouched demographic, and the first party willing to do so will see its campaigns acclaimed as relevant to the 21st century.
Political parties have attempted to incorporate social media strategy into their campaigns of late, with Corbyn stating: “We need to get a strong, positive message across and we do that better on social media”. However, tweeting, snapchatting and posting on Instagram is useless unless it is done with authenticity and as part of an integrated digital campaign.
Many criticise channels such as Facebook for using algorithms to determine what a certain audience is exposed to, however with the right use of tailored digital ads to ensure users make a correlation between lifestyle choices and the chosen party, this will ultimately result in a higher turnout of the under-30 voter, which could organically turn predicted outcomes on their head.
If done correctly, we believe 2017 could be the last general election where digital isn’t front of mind; in another five years’ time the entire election process will be digitalised with the public even casting votes online rather than in polling stations. Now is the time for political parties to start defining user objectives, tracking journeys and using personalisation to grab attention, converting the user into a supporter, and ultimately, a voter.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-leave-remain-europe-supreme-court-case-young-people-students-theresa-may-parents-betrayed-a7528146.html
CompuMark, the industry leader for trademark research and protection, today released findings around the impact that trademark infringement has on brands, with eight-in-10 (80%) of C-level executives saying it is on the rise. Despite this awareness, the research also uncovered that that only one in five respondents (20%) have a process in place to actively watch more than 75% of their marks, while half admitted to only watching between 26-7%.
Conducted by leading market research company Opinium, the survey analyzed the challenges that C-Level executives face, their outlook on trademark infringement and the trademark management process overall.
The research also showed that trademarking is on the rise, as two-thirds (66%) of organisations stated they had plans to launch new marks over the next 12 months. In addition, 80% of respondents said they would be more likely to launch new brands if trademark clearance were simpler.
“The number of trademarks being filed is increasing exponentially and will, no doubt, continue to do so. This fact, coupled with the sheer number of trademarks that are already in the marketplace means that it is getting more and more difficult for brands to clear and register unique marks, while properly protecting those they have registered. This highlights the need for greater protection and, as a result, makes it imperative for organisations across the globe to develop and enforce a comprehensive strategy that helps them secure their biggest assets — their brands,” said Anil Gupta, CMO of CompuMark.
In addition to financial implications of trademark infringement, such as loss of revenue (26%), respondents in the survey identified damage to brand reputation (21%), customer confusion (21%) and reduced customer loyalty and trust (19%) as the some of the main consequences.
Other key findings from the research include:
(Source: CompuMark)
The number and value of offshore M&A deals fell in 2016 when compared to a record 2015, a theme that played out in nearly every world region, according to a report released by offshore law firm Appleby.
The latest edition of Offshore-i, an Appleby report that provides data and insight on merger and acquisition activity in the major offshore financial centres, focuses on transactions announced over the course of 2016. With the volume and value of deals down on the previous year, the report found 2016 marked a return to business as usual as transactions reset to levels familiar before the 2015 outlier.
“It was clear from the start of 2016 that offshore deal activity was going to struggle to keep up with the phenomenal levels of M&A volume and value that were generated in 2015,” said Cameron Adderley, Partner and Global Head of Corporate at Appleby.
“While the outlook for 2017 remains fraught with uncertainty, many of the key drivers of a healthy dealmaking environment remain. They include companies looking to supplement limited organic growth through M&A, to improve margins by realizing synergies and to take advantage of the low cost of capital by making acquisitions."
Looking forward, the report points to four factors that will determine whether offshore M&A levels improve in 2017: progress between EU and UK officials on establishing a new relationship; changes to the international trade and immigration policy out of the US; China’s ability to manage its economic slowdown; and progress in the Eurozone’s continued economic recovery.
The M&A Environment Across Jurisdictions
In total, there were 2,895 deals targeting offshore companies in 2016, representing a total value of USD234bn, the report found. Each deal in the offshore top 10 was worth more than USD2bn, and the region saw a total of 46 transactions in 2016 each worth at least a billion dollars, double the typical total seen as recently as five years ago.
The largest offshore deal announced in 2016 was the USD6.3bn purchase of Bermuda-based property and casualty insurance services company Endurance Specialty Holding, one of two insurance sector deals in the top 10. Outside of insurance, the real estate sector also featured prominently in the top 10, with the biggest being the USD4.5bn sale of CITIC Real Estate Co & Tuxiana Corporation, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and China, to China Overseas Land & Investment.
The Cayman Islands held on as the busiest jurisdiction for offshore transactions in 2016, recording nearly one-third of all deals and total deal value. The British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong were the standouts of the year as the only two offshore jurisdictions to see an increase in activity over 2015.
Acquirer Deals Involving Offshore Buyers Continues to Rise
Though the primary focus of Offshore-i is on transactions in which offshore targets are purchased by investors, the report also examines deals in which the acquirer is based offshore. For the last five years, the volume of acquirer deals involving offshore-incorporated buyers has increased steadily and is now at the point where more transactions are flowing out of offshore jurisdictions than are flowing in.
The year 2016 recorded 3,127 such deals worth a cumulative USD339bn. In the largest outbound deal of the year, Jersey-incorporated Shire acquired a Baxalta, a US-based manufacturer of pharmaceutical preparations for USD32bn.
“As with inbound deals, we see a healthy spread of sectors represented in the top 10 deals of the year involving an offshore acquirer, including energy, transport, data processing and software publishing,” said Adderley. “Dealmakers are establishing holding companies offshore to take advantage of the many technical, legal and regulatory advantages of these jurisdictions, and then using those companies to make acquisitions, sometimes back in their home country.”
Key Findings of 2016:
(Source: Offshore-i, Appleby)
UK's exit from EU may end five-year boom in corporate profit and stock valuations. A new survey shows that firms that are engaged with Brexit are more confident about managing the impact, whereas 64% believe Brexit will reduce their profitability.
A new survey of 210 C-level executives, commissioned by Hogan Lovells, the international law firm, finds that companies that are planning, preparing and are proactively involved in the Brexit process are markedly more confident about the impact Brexit will have on their business outlook.
However, widespread uncertainty and pessimism does exist. Nearly ttwo-thirds (64%) of major global businesses believe that Brexit will reduce their profitability over the next five years, with 14% of these firms expecting the fall to exceed 5%. In the UK, the number of firms concerned that the country's exit from the EU will cut profits rises to 76%.
The findings form part of the first Hogan Lovells Brexometer, which gathered the views about Brexit from executives at companies with an annual turnover of at least $1bn, working across various sectors and based in seven jurisdictions.
"On the eve of the starting gun being fired on Article 50, the survey shows very clear concerns exist among business leaders about Britain’s exit from the EU, but also that business confidence can be built on proper planning and pro-active engagement", said Susan Bright, Regional Managing Partner of Hogan Lovells, UK and Africa.
The survey finds that:
Susan Bright said: “It is fascinating to take the temperature of global businesses as we enter the next crucial phase of the UK's ultimate exit from the EU. While the UK Government has set out a bold vision for a post-Brexit world, it is clear that many businesses do not yet share such an optimistic view of what the UK and its trading relationships may look like in the future.
"However, it is certainly not all doom and gloom", she continued. "Our survey also tells a story of self-help; that business confidence is built on planning and pro-active engagement. The good news is that there is still time for businesses to engage with Government and policymakers and to shape Brexit positively for their own benefit and the benefit of their customers."
Respondents to the Hogan Lovells Brexometer were split evenly across seven countries and regions: Britain, France, Germany, 'Other EU', the US, Japan and China, and represented the following industry sectors: Automotive, Diversified industrials, Energy, Financial Services, Insurance, Life Sciences and Technology, Media, and Telecommunications.
Chancellor Philip Hammond delivered his 2017 spring budget this afternoon, claiming it will be providing a ‘strong, stable platform for Brexit’. Among his proposed plans are: increasing national insurance for the self-employed, rising personal tax-free allowance, rates for businesses losing existing relief will be capped at £50 a month, and having an extra £2 billion for adult social care.
He spoke on how debt rose this year but will aim to fall in 2021-22, how the UK is the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2016 and how a further 650,000 people are expected to be employed by 2021.
With a variety of sectors being affected by the budget, Lawyer Monthly reports on the effect it will have on certain sectors by hearing from a range of experts on the matter.
The Chancellor talked of a “strong, stable platform for Brexit” and it is Brexit that continues to dominates the indirect tax landscape. That said, today’s Budget speech contained mention of several changes to the VAT rules, the most notable being an ‘easy-win’ of collecting VAT on mobile phone roaming by UK residents outside of the EU. Changes to the penalty regime should allow HMRC to continue to reduce the tax gap so are welcomed with ‘cautious optimism’ although the detail will be important in understanding how far these powers extend.
Rob Marchant, VAT Partner at audit, tax and advisory firm Crowe Clark Whitehill, commented on this:
“The Chancellor talked of a “strong, stable platform for Brexit” and it is Brexit that continues to dominates the indirect tax landscape. That said, today’s Budget speech contained mention of several interesting changes to the VAT rules:
Finally, the Budget Notes highlight two further areas where consultation over future VAT rule changes will take place:
Richard Flax, the Chief Investment Officer at digital wealth manager Moneyfarm commented on the budget in relation to those trying to maximise their ISA:
“This wasn’t a Budget for savers who are facing rising inflation and record low interest rates. In the absence of real returns on many cash savings products, investments in financial markets are now a more attractive option for savvy Brits.
“The Chancellor’s continued clampdown on tax avoidance in today’s Budget suggests that Brits will be best served by continuing to focus on simple and transparent investment solutions like Stocks and Shares ISAs.
“Particularly given the more than 30% increase to the annual ISA allowance from £15,240 to £20,000, which is coming in to effect in April. Today’s Budget provides a timely reminder for people to maximise their ISA, both before this year’s allowance expires on 5 April and also to get a plan in place for next year.
“The government has now placed the onus on the individual to make the most of allowances available to them.”
SMEs have been concerned over today’s Spring Budget announcement, with many feeling that they would not be a priority for the government.
Many SMEs are facing business rates increases as part of the revaluation announced for April, and although the £300m fund for those hit by rate increases is a step in the right direction, SMEs are continuing to face cashflow balances outside of their control. Aamar Aslam, CEO of Funding Invoice, the invoice trading platform, commented on the changes in business rates, as outlined in the Spring Budget 2017:
“The Chancellor announced today that business rates revaluation will take effect from April 2017 across England, along with a planned discretionary fund of £300m for local authorities to support businesses hard-hit by business rates, which will undoubtedly be welcome news for businesses across the country facing closure as a result of these revaluations.
For SMEs, however, business rates can provide an unwanted burden on cashflow. A number of SMEs are relocating outside of the big cities as a result of rising commercial rents, but they will still face business rate burdens, particularly those with several property outlets. Whilst this £300m fund is a step in the right direction, small businesses are continuing to suffer from cashflow imbalances outside of their control, and require support from Government to resolve these issues and keep the economy afloat.”
Holly Cudbill, Associate Solicitor at Coffin Mew speaks on the impact on the self-employed and gig economy:
“Today’s announcement is good news for the country’s coffers, but not for the tens of thousands of people whose only source of income is in so-called gig economy work where they have no choice other than to accept the self-employed description imposed on them.
“As we know from the recently well-publicised cases, companies like Uber and Deliveroo are happy to fight their drivers and delivery people in the courts to try to maintain the company’s position that those individuals are self-employed.
“In these companies, if the drivers are employees, or workers, they would have a number of additional rights, including paid holiday, the right to the national living wage (which the Chancellor confirmed today will be increasing) and protection for discrimination. Many of the drivers lack the resources, confidence or desire to take on these massive international organisations and so have no choice other than to agree that they are ‘self-employed’. These people tend to be the lowest paid and will see their earnings take a further hit as the national insurance contributions they have to pay are increased.”
Nick Gross, Chairman at Coffin Mew, speaks on the impact on the transport sector:
“While, as budgets go, Phillip Hammond’s 2017 Budget appears fairly tame, there are a number of points of interest for those involved in the transport and logistics sector.
“A freeze on vehicle excise duty for hauliers and HGVs will, I’m sure, be welcomed by many, as will plans for a £220 million transport fund for national roads and a £690 million fund to tackle urban congestion.
“Mr Hammond further announced an additional £270 million for disruptive technologies, such as robotics and driverless vehicles, something that further cements the government’s intention of keeping Britain at the forefront of developing driverless technology.
“Finally, it is also important to note what was not mentioned. Specifically, Mr Hammond made no comment on the expected introduction of a diesel scrappage scheme. Whether this means that the idea has been parked, or not, we will have to wait and see.”
Just recently, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that “in principle,” the income related laws governing the immigration of foreign spouses to the UK are lawful.
The rules, as of 2012, state that UK citizens must earn £18,600 or beyond before their wife or husband, if from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), can join them in residing in the UK.
According to the BBC, the Court Judges rejected an appeal by families claiming their human right to a family life was impeded by the rules. However, they did criticize the threshold as "defective" and a cause of "hardship,” making particular reference to the welfare of children involved, or of other sources of income.
Below Lawyer Monthly has heard from a few specialist sources around the country, who have voiced their thoughts on the ruling and the rules.
Jamie Kerr, Immigration Partner, Thorntons:
The difficult relationship between money and love has been the subject of musings from the UK Supreme Court in London. In a controversial decision, a bench of seven highly paid judges decided that the UK government’s rules on preventing low paid workers (and others) from bringing their spouses and partners to the UK are acceptable in principle.
The decision follows the introduction of tough new family migration rules by the UK Government in 2012. Under these rules, anyone who wishes to bring a non-European partner or spouse to the UK must be earning at least £18,600. An additional sum of £3,800 is added for a dependent child with £2,400 for each additional child after that.
So, let’s take the scenario of a British national who wishes his US national wife and her two children to join him in the UK. He would require to be earning £24,800 before being able to do so (£18,600 + £3,800 + £2,400).
When we consider the minimum income rules, it is worth considering the uneven impact they have across the UK. In Scotland for instance, 48% of people who work do not meet the rules. This rises to 51% in Wales and 56% in Merseyside. In London, only 29% of those who work cannot meet the rules.
It is therefore clear that the regions and nations of the UK are hit hardest by a one size fits all immigration policy. The London-based Supreme Court noted ‘substantial regional differences’ though despite this, they were unwilling to find the rules unlawful.
They did recognise the “significant hardship” that the rules cause and will continue to cause to many thousands of couples who have good reasons for wanting to make their lives together in this country. However, they rather disappointingly take the view that “a rule which causes hardship to many, including some who are in no way to blame for the situation in which they now find themselves, does not mean that it is…unlawful at common law.”
And there we have it. Laws that cause hardship to thousands of ordinary people are not necessarily unlawful. Laws that favour London and disproportionality impact the regions and nations of the UK are not necessarily unlawful. Laws that disproportionately affect females are not necessarily unlawful.
Despite all the hype and political rhetoric around migration, many had hoped that the Supreme Court would step in and speak authoritatively, rationally and fairly to remedy a manifestly unjust situation. They did not do so and that is a great shame.
One is left pondering whether the thousands of couples and families who are feeling the significant hardship that the Court speaks of will be cursing Cupid for shooting his arrow at a non-European. Or perhaps they are cursing well paid judges, living a world away from the regions and nations of the UK where this harsh government policy will continue to cause significant hardship.
Gary McIndoe, Director, Latitude Law:
Until July 2012, when a foreign partner of a British or settled sponsor sought entry to the UK the family had to prove that it had ‘adequate’ household income, which implied an ability to support one another and any dependants without recourse to public funds. The old test, as interpreted by the courts, at its heart required Home Office officials to compare potential household income with that received by a similar family on UK benefits. If they exceeded this notional amount, the applicant succeeded. The calculation could be blurred, however, by evidence that a particular couple was for example particularly frugal, and had shown themselves able to live on less than the benefits level. Accumulated savings could also be taken into account, as crucially could so-called third-party support from other family members.
The Home Office dispensed with the concept of adequacy (in all but a small number of cases where a sponsoring spouse received certain qualifying benefits) in changes which introduced a ‘bright line’ income rule. Put shortly, as Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath in their joint judgment in MM (Lebanon) and Others state, new rules required a sponsoring partner (rather than the applicant and partner jointly, and certainly without any assistance from family members) to have a gross annual income of at least £18,600, with an additional £3,800 for the first non-settled dependent child, and £2,400 for each further child.
The Court decided that the imposition of such a blunt rule was, in principle, acceptable, albeit policy guidance accompanying the rule failed to take sufficient account of the UK’s obligations under Article 8 ECHR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as it affected children of families applying under the new regime. Thus, with a little re-writing of casework guidance, the rules will be permitted to continue in their present form.
The present system is, in principle, a simple one. However, scratch the surface a little and the difficulty of applying a stark income threshold to the myriad family circumstances that might precede an application for a partner visa becomes clear. Most harmful, in my view, has been the restriction of the income assessment to the sponsor alone – ignoring the foreign spouse’s income all together at entry clearance stage (the position changes for in-country applicants).
An entire appendix to the immigration rules is required to explain the evidential requirements to be met. How, for example, to assess the income of a couple resident abroad for several years, where the sponsor is leaving a job to relocate back to the UK? What if that sponsor was self-employed in a country where tax returns and thus reliable evidence of income are hard to come by? Crucially, how can it be fair to assess only the sponsor’s income, effectively precluding a British woman who has raised a family rather than worked abroad from sponsoring her foreign husband back in the UK?
The judgement in MM (Lebanon) does nothing to address these practical problems, which we as immigration practitioners at Latitude Law confront regularly.
We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
