Rive Gauche: Corbyn in “The Thick Of It? drama…

The Labour party’s week descended even further into The Thick of It territory on Friday afternoon in an encounter between Jeremy Corbyn and a Sky News journalist.

Following the suspension of Ken Livingstone on Thursday, which at one point involved the veteran politician hiding in a disable loo while assorted British news media asked if he supported Hitler, the Labour leader – clearly wanting to avoid any further questions about antisemitism in his party – tried to dodge the reporter and make his way into the nearby building.

The only trouble was.. he couldn’t open the door.

Taxi for Mr Corbyn time?

It just gets more bizarre… wonderful nonsense from veteran old geezer politicos

And this…

Is Corbyn just taking the piss now with this unfortunate greeting?

And finally…

But…this is more like an old Morecambe & Wise show… but almost as amusing

Does Your Contract Need Wriggle Room?

Does Your Contract Need Wriggle Room?
Sarah Fox
Author of the 500-Word ContractTM


w: http://www.500words.co.uk/

The saga of 123-reg has highlighted the role of ‘wriggle room’ in contracts.

Wriggling in Court

Before specialising in advising on contract strategy and writing/negotiating contracts, I had the pleasure of winning a case in the Court of Appeal.  It involved what I call ‘advanced wriggling.’

My clients’ insurers were relying on wriggling out of their obligation to compensate my clients for their insured losses. The insurance company pointed to a term requiring its insured (my clients) to have a working burglar alarm at all times. Although the printing factory did have a burglar alarm, it had been disabled temporarily to allow renovation works to take place.

I vividly recall an Appeal Court judge asking the barrister (who was representing the insurance company) whether he was really suggesting that if the judge ‘popped out for a sandwich’ and failed to turn on his own burglar alarm, the insurance company would not compensate him for any insured risk that happened in the meantime?  The barrister ‘wriggled’, rather uncomfortably, when he confirmed that was precisely the insurer’s position. They were sticking to the terms of the insurance contract.

The Appeal Court judges showed their displeasure and their astonishment. They decided not to strictly enforce the terms of the small print in the insurance contract, and not to allow the insurance company to ‘wriggle’ out of its obligations.

Wriggling before Court

Back to 123-reg… Many disgruntled companies are now contemplating bringing court proceedings against 123-reg seeking compensation for breaching their website-hosting contract.

123-reg is acting in a classically defensive and adversarial manner. Rather than

  • creating trust with its clients (which it admits may have taken a knock)
  • being open about its failings from the start (it took several days to come clean)
  • being generous with its clients (six months free hosting anyone?)

it is relying on (and hiding behind) its terms and conditions. It is wriggling like a worm on a hook! This position may be within its contractual rights, but its response will irreversibly damage its reputation and its brand.

Would you rather work with a company who uses its contracts to wriggle out of its responsibilities to you, or who goes the extra mile?

My case: Printpak v AGF Insurance [1999] EWCA Civ 683

Rive Gauche: The Law Society is being sued for monopolising legal training.

The Law Society is being sued for monopolising legal training.

“An online training provider called Socrates Training has accused the Law Society of abusing its dominant position in the market and has filed a claim for undisclosed damages with the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Both Socrates and the Law Society offer online training covering mortgage fraud, financial crime and money laundering, which conveyancing firms are under a statutory duty to provide to staff. However, in 2015 the Law Society ruled that as a condition of law firms maintaining accreditation with its Conveyancing Quality Scheme, they could only purchase their training from it.”

RollonFriday has the story

Drink driving charge? Here’s how to keep your license…

Drink driving charge? Here’s how to keep your license…
By Jack Bani

You may think that if you get a charge for drink driving that it’s the end of the world. You’ll be banned from driving and you’ll no longer be able to get to work, to take your children to school and so on. The important thing to do though, is not to panic.

There are many variables with a charge like this, and it could even be the case that you were not at fault. Here are two of the main reasons for a prosecution, and how hiring an experienced solicitor could help to defend you from a license ban. If you’d like a full list of potential penalties to help with your research, click here.

  1. A high alcohol reading

First and foremost, the most likely reason why you have been charged is that you have provided a high reading of alcoholic consumption on a breathalyser test. However, if you think it’s faulty then you could well have a case to defend yourself.

The heavy reliance these days on electronic equipment can often mean that mistakes are made due to a faulty machine. Inaccurate readings do occur, so if you’ve been surprised by a reading when you know that you’ve had little or no alcohol, the reliability of the analysis used as evidence can be challenged.

Secondly, there could have been a delay between the alleged drunken driving incident and the time of arrest. In cases where you have consumed alcohol after the incident but before the test, this could well produce an inaccurate record and this is known as the “hip flask defence”.

  1. Failure to provide samples

According to the government website, a failure to provide samples under suspicion of drink driving could lead to six month’s imprisonment, an unlimited fine and a ban from driving for at least one year. Those consequences sound pretty scary, but it could be the case that there are legitimate reasons why you were not able to give a sample, and in those instances there could well be a different.

For example, you may have a medical condition that affects your lung capacity meaning that you were unable to satisfy the needs of the analysis. Or, the police could have been unclear on how to use the machine. There are three types of machine used in the UK, and although instructions that work for one machine may not work for another, officers are told to instruct people in the same way for all three.

Finally, if you were involved in an accident and were taken to hospital, blood and urine tests are not always required, as testing there differs from a police station. In this way, it could be a simple procedural error on behalf of the police. These are all instances where you can put forward a defence against a conviction, but make sure that you have the best representation possible. Going to someone like http://drinkdrivesolicitor.com will ensure that you have 25 years’ worth of motor charges defense on your side.

I hope you found this article useful – if you have anything to add, please feel free to leave a comment.

Police Scotland searching for driver who didn’t wave

Police Scotland have launched a manhunt across the Highlands and Islands after “some bastard” forgot to wave on a single track road.

“They just drove straight past me like I wasn’t even there” said Norma Harris. “I didn’t lose control or anything but I felt the only decent thing to do was to crash into a fence to show how shocked I was.”

Reports on the culprit are conflicting but Police Scotland have instructed residents to be on the look out for a man, or possibly woman under the age of 100, who may or may not have hands.

“I have lost all faith in humanity” said Chief Superintendent Julian Innes. “We might as well hand give back all the poppers and heroin we had been saving for the Christmas party and watch while Inverness is burnt to the ground”.

The incident is widely regarded as the worst thing to happen since the infamous “Allan” left the pub before getting his round in, resulting in a fourteen year stint behind bars, followed by deportation.

A Nigerian citizen born in 1953 entered the UK on 4th September 2008 as a visitor and has remained in the UK ever since

This post first appeared on daniellecohenimmigration.com

A Nigerian citizen born in 1953 entered the UK on 4th September 2008 as a visitor and has remained in the UK ever since. She has three adult children, two of whom are British nationals and the third has leave to remain in the UK as a partner under Appendix FM and is on a ten year route to settlement. There are also two grandchildren.

In October 2008 before instructing Danielle Cohen, she applied for indefinite leave to remain as a dependent relative. That application was refused and her appeal was dismissed on 10th May 2010. She made a further application as a dependent relative and under the Private and Family Life Immigration Rules, the application was refused and the appeal was dismissed in March 2014. Permission to appeal was granted and the Upper Tribunal found an error of law by the Second Tribunal. The appeal was remitted to the First Tier Tribunal for hearing denovo. Again a determination was made on 15th January 2015 and the appeal was dismissed under the Immigration Rules but allowed under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act on the basis of the client’s family and private life with her three daughters and two grandchildren in the UK.

The Tribunal found the evidence from the claimant and her three daughters to be credible. It found that she faced a risk of assault and intimidation from her step son in the event of her return to her former home in Nigeria. A reference was made to the period of time when the claimant lived in the UK without leave and considered whether or not weight should be given to her private life established in the UK when she had a precarious immigration status. In considering the best interests of her grandchildren, the Tribunal found that she played a significant part in the life of her grandchildren and that her absence was likely to have an emotional impact on them despite their young age. It was also noted that the fact that she provided childcare for her children enabled them to accommodate and provide for her in the UK.

After the victory in Court, in 2015, the Secretary of State sought permission to appeal the decision on the grounds that the Tribunal materially misdirected itself in law by failing to engage with the findings of the Tribunal in 2010. The permission to appeal was granted to the Home Office on the grounds that it was arguable that the First Tier Tribunal erred in following a case called Tevaseelan. The case continued and an error of law hearing took place. The case was won again and the client was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK because the Tribunal found that the First Tier Tribunal was fully aware of the findings of fact made by the Tribunal in 2010 and there was no error of law.

The importance of this case and many people in her position is that when the Home Office looks at the family life of a person in her position and the engagement of Article 8 they have to pay careful attention to what is meant by the term “exceptional circumstances” justifying the grant of leave outside the immigration Rules. The guidance on exceptional circumstances to cases that fall to be determined outside the Immigration Rules have been considered in a number of cases and the Judge and the Home Office need to employ an objective approach and should avoid a tick box exercise. The use of the phrase “exceptional circumstances” means that the weighing exercise contemplated by the Rules is to be carried out compatibly with the Convention.

In the context of the client, “exceptional” meant circumstances in which the removal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the individual and the family. Furthermore, in another case it was interpreted to mean circumstances which evoke compassion in the mind of the decision maker.

This case also asks us to consider the concept of “family life” within the meaning of Article 8. Rather than applying a blanket rule with regard to adult children each case needs to be analysed on its own facts and to decide whether or not family life exists within the meaning of Article 8(1). Generally the protection of family life under Article 8 involves cohabiting dependents such as parents and the dependents’ minor children. Whether it extends to other relationships depends on the circumstances of a particular case. A number of cases have concluded that the existence or non-existence of family life for the purposes of Article 8 is essentially a question of fact depending on the real existence in practice of close personal ties. The argument was that the client developed a significant private life in the UK and that Article 8 also protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and can sometimes embrace aspects of the individual’s social identity. The case demonstrated the totality of social ties between the client and her community private life within the meaning of Article 8. And further argued that this case engaged Section 55 of the Borders Citizenship & Immigration Act 2009 and therefore the grandchildren’s best interests were a primary consideration.

The best interests of the grandchildren became an integral part of the proportionality assessment under Article 8.

In addition it was submitted that refusal will have a significantly adverse effect on the UK family member and such an effect is a relevant consideration in this appeal. The success was a great relief to all the family members and all involved are delighted in their happiness.