Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
New research reveals the extent to which drones are taking off in business, despite poor knowledge of some of the rules surrounding their use.
One in three business decision makers (34%) say the technology is either already in use in their industry, or will be in the future, according to the research, carried out by YouGov on behalf of law firm Charles Russell Speechlys.
Worryingly, despite their growing prevalence, on average, over half (55%) of those that predict the use of drones in their industry say they lack knowledge about the rules and regulations, such as in relation to security, privacy, aerial trespassing and personal responsibility.
In response to the findings, Charles Russell Speechlys is calling for greater clarity and education surrounding drone law, to help businesses realise the benefits of the technology, without exposing themselves to risk.
The firm has also today launched a new report to help businesses understand the legal issues they should be aware of when using drones.
Robert Bond, Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, said: “We are yet to fully understand the massive potential of drone technology to transform the way that we do business. Already, drones have had a massive impact on a wide variety of sectors, such as construction, and that’s really just the tip of the iceberg.
“But, as their use grows, it’s critical that businesses know how to use drones responsibly, so it’s worrying to see that current levels of understanding when it comes to regulation are so low.
“In fairness, there is currently no clear legal framework to help them. While issues such as aviation are well reported, few are aware, for example, that using drones can violate the privacy rights of individuals under current data protection law.
“The Government must do more to clarify the law on drones as their use becomes more ubiquitous by both consumers and businesses.”
(Source: Charles Russell Speechlys)
The Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimee Doerries QC, has invited Hugh Mercer QC to chair a Bar Council working group to consider the ramifications for the profession of Brexit.
The Brexit working group’s first step will be to host an open forum for barristers to raise topics and issues which they would like to consider. Thereafter it will review the consequences of Brexit for the profession as a whole, for certain practice areas, for chambers and entities and for the justice system more broadly.
Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said: “Barristers practising in other EU countries may well be wondering what the future holds.
“It is fair to say that Brexit has created a great deal of uncertainty, but one thing we can be sure of is London’s position as the transaction and dispute resolution centre of Europe. The Bar, the judiciary, our world class commercial court infrastructure and our system of common law all contribute to making the UK an attractive destination for business and investment. The UK is the jurisdiction of choice for parties from all over the world.
“Top of the working group’s agenda is securing free movement for lawyers within Europe and other jurisdictions where barristers have benefitted from European trade agreements. This will allow legal professionals throughout the EU to continue providing the advice and legal representation that is vital to their clients’ business and economic interests, and to stability and growth across a range of sectors.”
The working group’s focus will be to evaluate the implications of Brexit and produce guidance for the profession. Its remit does not include seeking to influence the Government’s decision to leave or remain in the European Union, on which the Bar Council has maintained, and continues to maintain, a politically neutral position.
(Source: UK Bar Council)
In the wake of Brexit, the Bank of England is predicted to cut interest rates for the first time in seven years tomorrow. Kevin Ross, at Brown Turner Ross solicitors, predicts that this can only be a good thing for the property market and help keep the economy buoyant:
A cut in the interest rate may affect the mortgages that will be on offer to buyers, with some very attractive offers becoming available. It would also affect those current borrowers that are on variable or discounted rates.
The impact is even bigger if the borrower has an interest-only mortgage, although these have largely disappeared since the credit crunch.
If you are on a fixed rate mortgage then your rate is pegged until the fixed rate expires so there will be no change for you. However, people looking to buy in the near future should expect some very attractive deals in the next few weeks if the rate is cut.
We would not expect all lenders to pass on the full extent of the cut and of course many banks have still not reduced their standard variable rates (SVRs) to anywhere near the 0.5% base rate.
Post-Brexit, there has been much talk of falls in house prices with some experts predicting that house prices would drop nationally by 10%, and more in London. We have heard that some buyers have pulled out of deals. At Brown Turner Ross that has not been our experience from dealing with transactions across the country.
Overall we feel that the shortened process to appoint a new Prime Minister and an interest rate cut may stabilise the market, with nervous buyers happier about going ahead and there being greater confidence generally.
(Source: Brown Turner Ross)
Jane Crosby , specialist in commercial litigation and employment law at Hart Brown, outlines how employment law could be affected by the UK leaving Europe
When the UK went to the polls on June 23rd, few people predicted the outcome that arose, with the Leave campaign scoring a shock win and a slender majority of the UK public voting to leave the European Union.
In the time since the result was revealed, there has been much speculation and debate over what the decision means for the UK in various sectors. But what is important is that the nation starts to look to the future and prepare properly for what lies ahead, be it in property sales, finances, or indeed employment law.
As the UK prepares to activate Article 50 and signal its intention to leave the EU, employers need to start to look at their next steps, and that includes being aware of what the Brexit decision means, and how this will shape the world of employment law when negotiations come to an end in around two year’s time. So what should employers be expecting to see change in terms of employment law in the next couple of years?
Change in the law?
In the main, experts have suggested that there’s not actually all that much to worry about when it comes to changes in employment law but time will tell.
There are a number of areas of law which are enshrined in UK law such as discrimination rights, transfer of undertaking regulations, working time regulations and collective consultation.
Contrary to popular belief, many of the beneficial employment regulations, both on the side of employee and employer, were brought about by UK governments and not the EU, so if and when Article 50 is activated, these would not change.
On top of this is the simple suggestion that EU law is so integrated and ingrained in the minds and practices of the UK employment sector that there would be no real appetite for change, at least in the short term. And that’s not to mention the fact that companies and employees alike have enjoyed the benefits of European regulations for so long that to make an attempt to unravel them and replace them with new legislation would be little more than a time consuming exercise.
It’s also highly probable, the CIPD claims, that although the UK will not be forced to adopt any new EU regulation after it has ceased to be a member of the Union, that it will remain bound by precedents set by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and European Court of Justice (ECJ), which would mean there would be little in the way of worries surrounding large changes in the law.
Immigration
Without a doubt the biggest impact of the Brexit decision, British employers will need to be aware of how leaving the EU will affect immigration. Many British firms across a range of sectors employ EU migrants who have the freedom to work in the UK indefinitely, but after Brexit, this could be muddied somewhat.
Experts are somewhat split on what the move will mean for EU workers in the UK, with many believing those who are already in the UK will be given leave to stay without question, and others suggesting that EU migrants will thereafter have to satisfy similar immigration credentials as non-EU residents do at present.
There could also be an agreement as part of the UK’s negotiations around leaving the EU that sees trade agreements put in place that also protect the freedom of movement EU nationals currently enjoy, allowing them to work in the UK after Brexit with little change.
Equality and rights
Most of the equality laws that we enjoy in the UK were, contrary to popular belief, in place long before the EU membership, which means that the illegal status of discrimination of workers based on race, sex and disability will be unaffected once we have left the EU. It is difficult to imagine that the government will repeal the Equality Act 2010.
What may change, however, is the rate of compensation that people can receive in discrimination claims against employers, which could face a limit under UK law.
Holiday allowance
The holiday allowance that UK-based workers enjoy at the moment is as a result of the EU Working Time Directive, which sets out exactly how many days of holiday someone is entitled to based on their contract of employment.
Many experts expect to see changes in this area, with Frances O’Grady of the Trade Union Congress recently having stated that the six million workers who enjoyed the benefits of the Working Time Directive are likely to be worried.
The main changes in terms of holiday allowance are likely to come in the shape of changes to how holiday pay is calculated and rules over opting out of the 48-hour working week, although it remains to be seen what we will actually see when push comes to shove.
Transfer of undertakings
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 TUPE was first implemented in 1981.
This piece of legislation protects employees’ rights connected to their contracts of employment when there has been a transfer of undertakings or a service provision change.
Generally it has not been a popular piece of legislation with UK businesses. It is difficult to predict what would happen to this legislation but the government may take the opportunity to make changes to help businesses.
In general there may not be radical changes for businesses in the short term but they will need to keep updated to ensure they comply with the ever changing landscape.
(Source: Hart Brown)
Yell, one of the biggest providers of digital marketing in the UK, has discovered the vast majority of solicitors (94%) it researched have wrong or inconsistent information online[i], including basic details such as a phone number or email.
Feedback shows 89% of customers say they will try another company if the details listed online for a particular business are incorrect[ii], suggesting many small businesses, including solicitors are missing out on a lot of potential custom.
Yell conducted research into how the 11,311 solicitors in its UK database appear online, also asking customers nationwide about their online habits and expectations. The results paint a gloomy picture pointing to some basic errors in small businesses’ approach to reaching potential online customers.
Key facts:
“If a company’s information online is wrong, it’s arguably worse than not being online at all,” said Mark Clisby, Yell’s Marketing Director. “Not only is the company effectively invisible to customers, it can also seem careless or even untrustworthy. This often happens because companies don’t always know all the listings sites where they appear, or when they move they forget to update their information. It’s easily done, but can be incredibly damaging for business.
“A lot of small businesses tell me they get all their business from word of mouth and don’t need to be online. However, they’re ignoring the fact that word of mouth has moved online, with more than half of all customers choosing a local business based on online reviews. That’s a lot of work to be missing out on,” concluded Mark Clisby.
To support small businesses, Yell has launched Connect, a service recognising the importance of connections, word of mouth recommendations and referrals. It helps business owners make their details visible online and get in front of the people looking for local products and services.
Connect uses smart technology to automatically list and update business details everywhere they need to be online, accurately and consistently. Details include company name, address, telephone number, logo, opening hours and payment methods on sites such Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and 100s’ of other high profile sites. As part of the service, Connect also helps set up social profiles on Facebook, Google+, Twitter and Foursquare. A centralised dashboard enables customers to view analytics, monitor and respond to online reviews, and post both real-time and scheduled updates on their social networks, as well as update their business details online at the click of a button.
Yell is offering small businesses in the UK the chance to try out Connect by completing a free scan of their business online. By entering the business name and address, Connect is able to identify how visible a business is online and, most importantly, report on how accurate the information is. On average, over 240 people a day are running the free Connect scan to check business details online [v].
Additional interesting insights revealed by Yell’s research into small businesses across the UK within its database showed that[vi]:
[i] Research conducted by Yell – March 2016. Using Connect, Yell analysed the online presence of 2,433 solicitor businesses in the UK across sites including Bing, Facebook and My Local Services UK.
[ii] Research commissioned by Yell with OnePulse in June 2016. 1,500 UK adults were surveyed.
[iii] Research commissioned by Yell with OnePulse in June 2016. 1,500 UK adults were surveyed.
[iv] Research commissioned by Yell with OnePulse in March 2016. 1,943 UK adults were surveyed.
[v] Yell internal data collected during April 25 – June 13, 2016.
[vi] Research conducted by Yell – March 2016. Yell analysed 428,710 small businesses in the UK.
(Source: Yell)
This new framework protects the fundamental rights of anyone in the EU whose personal data is transferred to the United States as well as bringing legal clarity for businesses relying on transatlantic data transfers.
Andrus Ansip, Commission Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, said: "We have approved the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield today. It will protect the personal data of our people and provide clarity for businesses. We have worked hard with all our partners in Europe and in the US to get this deal right and to have it done as soon as possible. Data flows between our two continents are essential to our society and economy – we now have a robust framework ensuring these transfers take place in the best and safest conditions".
Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality said: "The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is a robust new system to protect the personal data of Europeans and ensure legal certainty for businesses. It brings stronger data protection standards that are better enforced, safeguards on government access, and easier redress for individuals in case of complaints. The new framework will restore the trust of consumers when their data is transferred across the Atlantic. We have worked together with the European data protection authorities, the European Parliament, the Member States and our U.S. counterparts to put in place an arrangement with the highest standards to protect Europeans' personal data".
The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is based on the following principles:
Since presenting the draft Privacy Shield in February, the Commission has drawn on the opinions of the European data protection authorities (Art. 29 working party) and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and the resolution of the European Parliament to include a number of additional clarifications and improvements. The European Commission and the U.S. notably agreed on additional clarifications on bulk collection of data, strengthening the Ombudsperson mechanism, and more explicit obligations on companies as regards limits on retention and onward transfers.
Next steps: The "adequacy decision" will be notified today to the Member States and thereby enter into force immediately. On the U.S. side, the Privacy Shield framework will be published in the Federal Register, the equivalent to our Official Journal. The U.S. Department of Commerce will start operating the Privacy Shield. Once companies have had an opportunity to review the framework and update their compliance, companies will be able to certify with the Commerce Department starting August 1. In parallel, the Commission will publish a short guide for citizens explaining the available remedies in case an individual considers that his personal data has been used without taking into account the data protection rules.
Background
On 2 February 2016 the European Commission and the U.S. Government reached a political agreement on a new framework for transatlantic exchanges of personal data for commercial purposes: the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (IP/16/216). The Commission presented the draft decision texts on 29 February 2016. Following the opinion of the article 29 working party (data protection authorities) of 13 April and the European Parliament resolution of 26 May, the Commission finalised the adoption procedure on 12 July 2016.
The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield reflects the requirements set out by the European Court of Justice in its ruling on 6 October 2015, which declared the old Safe Harbour framework invalid.
(Source: European Commission)
Legal 500 recommended law firm Duncan Lewis Solicitors are pleased to report the recent successful judicial review case of Ibrahim, R v SSHD where it was decided that the use of immigration detention in order to bring a prosecution for non-cooperation with removal is unlawful.
The recent Duncan Lewis judicial review case of Ibrahim, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1347 (Admin) saw Duncan Lewis Immigration Solicitor Shahnaz Roshan representing a Sudanese national claimant who was subject to immigration detention following completion of his sentence for a serious offence. This case concerned an action for unlawful detention. The Claimant was detained from 29 March 2013 until 20 October 2015 when the Secretary of State decided to release him. It was not in dispute that the Claimant had “deliberately and consistently refused to cooperate with the Secretary of State's efforts to remove him.”
However, referring to the Claimant’s non-co-operation and to a number of authorities where this factor has been considered, the judge summarised the position thus: “On the one hand, non-cooperation may have the effect of substantially increasing the length of the reasonable time for which a person may be detained while the Defendant seeks to effect his removal. On the other hand, it is not a ‘trump card’ which justifies indefinite detention.”
The judge summarised the Secretary of State’s attempts to remove the Claimant by saying that it appeared that most of 2013 was spent in trying to arrange for him to be interviewed at the Sudanese Embassy and most of 2014 was taken up in trying to arrange for the Claimant to be interviewed at his detention centre. Nevertheless, the judge found that it appeared that no attempt had been made in 2015 to arrange a further interview despite the fact that enquiries in 2014 had already indicated that the Claimant could not be removed without an interview.
Regarding this case, Director of Immigration David Saldanha said: “This case is another example of where, despite the claimant having refused to co-operate with the removal process, he was found to have been subject to unlawful detention. Applying the Hardial Singh principles, the judge found that the Secretary of State was acting with reasonable diligence and expedition up to the end of 2014 and that the period to the end of 2014 was a reasonable period for the Claimant to be detained, but that the Secretary of State had not done anything in 2015 to progress the Claimant's removal.”
In this case, counsel for the Secretary of State referred to the fact that consideration had been given to prosecuting the Claimant for his non-cooperation under s.35(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004: failing without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement made by the Secretary of State to take specified action which the Secretary of State thinks will or may enable a travel document to be obtained by or for the Claimant which would facilitate the Claimant's deportation or removal from the United Kingdom. It had already been found in R. (on the application of Babbage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 148 Admin that detaining somebody for the purpose of prosecuting them under section 35 was not a lawful exercise of the power to detain which could only be used for the purpose of deporting the person concerned.
Saldanha notes that interestingly, counsel for the Secretary of State argued that Babbage was wrongly decided as “detaining someone while they are prosecuted would be detaining them for the purposes of deporting them”. The judge found that if such prosecution was being used as a "route to drive compliance" according to one of the Home Office’s notes which the judge took to mean a form of pressure applied to the Claimant to encourage his cooperation with his removal, he could not accept this argument. The judge found that “the notion that it is a lawful use of the power conferred by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 to detain someone for a year while the relevant department gets round to initiating a prosecution only needs to be stated in order to be rejected.”
Accredited under the Law Society Immigration & Asylum Accreditation Scheme as a Level 2 Caseworker and Supervisor, David Saldanha has appeared as an advocate in hundreds of asylum and immigration appeals over the past 20 years before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal and their predecessors, gaining a significant experience in a wide range of immigration matters, such as asylum claims and unlawful detention, standing on behalf of the most vulnerable people in the society.
Shahnaz Roshan is qualified as a Level 2 Senior Caseworker under the Immigration and Asylum Accreditation Scheme. Since joining Duncan Lewis Shahnaz has represented clients in all types of immigration and asylum matters from providing initial legal advice to appeals at the Immigration Tribunals. She is committed to the publicly funded work Duncan Lewis offers to those people in the community who are unable to afford high quality legal representation.
(Source: Duncan Lewis)
Edwin Coe has been appointed as solicitors for the Santos claim that seeks to determine whether Parliamentary authority is required before Article 50 notice withdrawing from the EU can be triggered.
The Santos claim is the only issued application for judicial review on the issue of whether the Prime Minister has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 based on Royal Prerogative or will need a vote in Parliament approving withdrawal. The application is due to be heard for the first time on 19 July.
Edwin Coe is the leading class action firm in the UK. It acted for 50,000 small shareholders in the Railtrack litigation and then in the Northern Rock judicial review and has continued to act for small shopkeepers and traders in judicial review proceedings, most recently in relation to VAT changes and in Sunday trading hours. It is representing South American flower farmers in a claim against British Airways for price fixing. It represents Hillsborough victims and victims of child abuse in schools.
David Greene, senior partner of Edwin Coe LLP, said:
“We are very pleased to be joining the Bar team lead by Dominic Chambers QC on this issue. This is an issue of crucial constitutional importance in the process of withdrawal fromthe EU. It makes perfect sense for this issue to be determined as soon as possible. The determination will clear the way for the right method to be adopted in serving notice under Article 50. We will certainly be pressing the Court to deal with the matter swiftly.”
(Source: Edwin Coe LLP)
New regulatory requirements under the fourth EU Money Laundering Directive (MLD4) will encompass more sectors than ever before. Regardless of the UK’s EU membership, any company providing financial services in the EU will need to comply. John Marsden, Head of ID and Fraud at Equifax, comments on the importance of these new rules and how companies must act now to avoid hefty fines for non-compliance:
“The UK’s advanced digital economy and large financial services sector makes it a prime target for money launderers, terrorist financers and cyber criminals. Companies providing financial services must implement MLD4 by June 2017, while also maintaining compliance with previous financial crime regulation. As more sectors are swept into the fold of regulatory commitments to tackle financial crime, the stakes are high to avoid the financial and reputational damage associated with inadequate screening measures.
“The increase in regulatory action has recently honed in on companies failing to handle politically exposed people (PEPs) appropriately. These individuals hold positions within governments or international organisations, and have power or influence that can leave them exposed to corruption, especially bribery or extortion. PEPs are firmly in the sights of regulators, along with their relatives and close associates (RCAs). While they are not necessarily subject to asset freezing and can be taken on as customers, regulators expect companies to have enhanced due diligence in place to efficiently identify and monitor them. Screening must be an ongoing process to ensure status changes are captured.
“Although compliance is already a top focus for many organisations, at a fundamental level they must be able to demonstrate that they have appropriate checks in place. Central to this is an understanding of their obligation to fight untoward financial activity and implement robust anti-money laundering procedures. If companies fall short of regulatory expectations, they risk multi-million pound fines. It is also essential that businesses have the right technology in place to handle the copious amounts of data involved, and ensure that the extra checks don’t negatively impact business operations or the customer experience. With pressures to meet regulatory requirements only set to rise, financial companies must prepare now to fight the risks of financial crime.”
(Source: Equifax)
Kidnapping in the 21st century has taken a new form - companies' valuable data. Hackers gain access to data through a company's server or emails and either threaten to disclose it - known as data ransoming - or make it inaccessible with ransomware, a type of malware that can quickly infiltrate and lock down a server. And companies are now paying exorbitant amounts of money to get it back.
Data hacking is cheap and you can do it from a different country, so there are few risks for the people involved," explains Karl Kronenberger, Partner at Internet-focused law firm Kronenberger Rosenfeld. "For companies, the first solution is to have state-of-the-art technology defences, which involves getting experts to look at your network, analysing it for risks of intrusion and educating employees.
In addition to securing their networks, it's essential that companies back up their data and store it in multiple locations and formats. In cases of ransomware, Mr. Kronenberger explains that having a backup gives companies more negotiating power and protects them from being forced to pay hackers out of necessity. With few legal solutions currently available, being proactive against hackers is the best strategy.
Mr. Kronenberger, who represented three individuals in relation to the widely publicized anonymous theft, following a ransom demand, of private consumer data from the adultery website and dating service, Ashley Madison, answers the question - should companies pay data hacking ransoms?
Why prohibiting or discouraging companies from paying ransoms is one of the best-but least likely-solutions for data hacking.
The career of a data ransomer is entirely dependent on the willingness of victims of theft to pay money in exchange for the return of their property. In fact, market forces dictate the average breaking point for victims, which is a financial demand that is just high enough for a victim to refuse to pay, as well as the sweet spot for ransomers, which is the range from zero dollars up to the point where the average victim will refuse to pay. Thus, if all victims act together and uniformly reject to pay any money at all to ransomers, then all data ransoming will end, and the scourges of data ransoming will be permanently out of business, assuming data ransomers act like rational economic actors and stop their theft and ransoming if there is no way to make money from it.
Unfortunately, the self-interests of individual victims, and the business interests of business victims, is much more powerful than these victims’ interests in helping future victims by refusing to pay a ransom. When data is held ransom, it can result in damages in the thousands to tens of thousands per day for victims. And the ability to obtain the return of the ransomed data, for amounts that are often much less than the losses that would otherwise be suffered by holding out, is almost always the best business decision.
There are also certain industries where paying ransoms may be even more compelling. For example, if a hospital’s data is encrypted and held ransom, then it’s not just hospital profits that factor into the decision-making, but it’s the impact on patients, especially if vital patient data needed for treatment is encrypted.
How financial regulations and other actions by governments may be a solution.
One way to decrease the incentives for businesses to pay ransoms is for governments to institute sanctions regimes that prohibit companies from paying ransoms. The potential financial sanction will factor into the economic decision-making of any business that has received a ransom demand, which may result in the less costly route being resorting to a backup in lieu of paying a ransom, even if the backup is days or weeks old.
If governments can identify individuals or governments that are involved in making ransom demands, governments can place restrictions on money transfers to these individuals or governments. For example, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls could put restrictions on any money transfers to known data ransomers.
Generally raising the transaction costs for all the parties in data ransoming transactions will, in the end, discourage persons from engaging in this practice.
Essentially, what solutions are navigable.
In the short term, the best solution is for businesses to maintain backups that are kept in real time or virtually in real time, and that will not be subject to encryption malware. In the longer term, the best solution is concerted action by victims of data ransoming, perhaps incentivized through government sanctions regimes.
(Source: Kronenberger Rosenfeld)
