We are proud that solicitors at our firm were featured in a guide to the UK’s Top Rated Professionals distributed in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper on the 29th of March 2015. Clients have testified that our solicitors as professional, extremely helpful and prompt with excellent knowledge in their field of expertise.
The Court of Appeal in the case of MM v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 985 decided on 11th July 2014 that provisions in the Immigration Rules, imposing minimum income requirements on those with unrestricted right to live in the United Kingdom wishing to bring their non-European spouse to the United Kingdom is not a disproportionate interference with the UK partner’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that at present UK partners who have to meet the income threshold, have to demonstrate they have income of at least £18,600 per year for their spouse, £22,400 if including one child and a further £2,400 for every additional child. There are complex provisions about whether the income can be from employment or other sources. Our immigration solicitor, Mrs Attieh Fard, can talk you through these requirements, assess your case and help you prepare your application.
The UK Supreme Court has launched a channel on You Tube showing short summaries of its judgments. Justices read out the summaries when a judgment is released. You can access these on http://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt?feature=watch.
An employee withdrew his discrimination claim in the Employment Tribunal after the Tribunal had refused his application for an adjournment on medical grounds. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee’s appeal as it had been an error of law and unfair for the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing without allowing a short adjournment to the Employee to obtain medical report.
Iqbal v Metropolitan Police Service and another: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Judge Richardson, Dr K Mohanty and Miss S Wilson)
News from Family Law Week:
The new definition for domestic violence includes:
Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse
Controlling behaviour is:
a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resoures and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
Coercive behaviour is:
an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.
The new definition will be implemented by March 2013.
The Court of Appeal held in Barker v Hambleton District Council that an application to quash part of the local development plan was out of time on the basis that the statutory time limit under section 113 (4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for making an application to the High Court in respect of a local development plan starts “to run not on the day after the local planning authority had adopted the plan but on the very day of its adoption”. The Court held that “when a statutory time limit started with a particular day, time ran from that day and not from the following day.”
Source: The Times
Published on 21st August 2012
In the case of MA v JA and the Attorney General  EWHC 2219 (FAM) an Imam conducted a marriage ceremony for a husband and wife; however, the couple were not informed of some of the formalities of the Family Law Act 1996 during the ceremony. This resulted in their application under s 55 of the Act to declare the validity of the marriage being rejected by the Attorney General.
The declaration was later granted on the basis that the ceremony was of the kind permitted by English law and was in a form capable of producing a valid marriage.
Source: Family Law Newswatch
Damages in most civil cases including cases which involve suffering, pain and loss of amenity in respect of personal injury; nuisance; defamation; and all other torts which cause suffering, inconvenience or distress to individuals will increase by 10% from 1st April 2013, said The Lord Chief Justice
Source: New Law Journal
The government has introduced legislation to reduce the rate of IHT for those leaving 10% or more of their estate to charities.
To encourage people to leave part of their estate to charity, IHTA84/Sch1A provides that where at least 10% of a person’s net estate in form of a legacy of a specific amount, a share of the residue, or a share of the estate that is quantified or component of an estate is left to charity, the rate of tax charged is reduced to 36% from 40%.
For further information as to how your estate can benefit from this, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Supreme Court made a ruling today that employees cannot be sacked on grounds of age alone as age cannot be linked with competence. Firms or companies must have clear reasons to justify their decision to retire an employee, such decisions should be proportionate to achieving a certain aim, reported by the Times.
Employers will have to show
1) that the principal aims of forced retirement are legitimate
2) that retirement itself is the only way to achieve those aims.
In light of this ruling, employers who have direct age discrimination in their policy are strongly advised to review this. Should you require legal advice on this issue, please contact us today.