Cheyney Goulding

Cheyney Goulding Solicitors

t: 01483 56 76 76   e: legal@cheyneygoulding.co.uk

Administrator

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WHEN MAKING A WILL

by

A Lasting Power Of Attorney (LPA) allows to appoint one or more persons as your ‘attorney’.  They will have authority to act on your behalf where you have lost mental capacity, and/or are unable to make decisions at the time they need to be made.  There are 2 types of LPA:

Health and Welfare:

This gives your attorney(s) authority to make decisions about things like:

  • your daily routine, e.g. washing, dressing, eating
  • medical care
  • moving into a care home
  • to give or withhold life-sustaining treatment

It can only be used when you’re unable to make your own decisions.

Property and financial affairs:

This gives your attorney(s) the power to make decisions about your money and property, for example:

  • managing a bank or building society account
  • paying bills
  • collecting benefits or a pension
  • selling your home

Mental capacity does not have to have been lost here, and the LPA is useable by your attorneys post registration with your permission.

CRICKET UMPIRES LOSE AGE DISCRIMINATION CASE

by

Two first class cricket umpires, Peter Willey and George Sharpe, who umpired at 40 international matches between them, have recently lost their age discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against The England Wales Cricket Board (ECB).   The two were forced to retire at the age of 65 in line with the ECB’s compulsory retirement age policy.  

The default retirement age was abolished by government legislation in 2011 and since then employers have only been able to force employees at a certain age if they can show that the policy exists to meet a legitimate aim, and it is a proportionate way of meeting that aim.  

The Tribunal had to consider whether the age at which the policy was set was appropriate and justified.   The Tribunal decided that the age of 65 was justified at the current time.   The ECB’s position was strengthened by the fact that it had an existing written policy in place which set out the policy and the justification for that policy.

DIRECTOR’S CORPORATE QUESTION TIME

by

We firstly would like to take the time to thank all those involved with the Directors Question Time Seminar, and especially to Barnes Roffe and HSBC for their promotion and for hosting the event itself.  The Seminar began with a general question about the ways in which a Seller of a business can make the process easier to manage.  Julian Goulding began the discussion on this topic and it quickly became the overall theme of the night.  As such, four key areas were identified as being essential to managing a sale:

Planning – This is the most important factor to consider.  Don’t wait until the Buyer begins enquiries, so have your anticipated answers ready.  This can’t be stressed enough.

Momentum – If the process moves too slowly all involved will lose steam and the whole endeavour will grind to a halt.  Keep yourself involved in the process and it won’t run the risk of stagnation.

Time – Plan for a third longer than you anticipate the sale to take and take into account the time of year.  Any holiday period is a major factor to consider even if it is still some time away.

Stress – This isn’t an after-hours project.  At some point in the process, this will take up a good part, if not most of your time and attention.  Try to effect a practical management strategy so as to give time to complete this project.

The points above bring projects such as this well within acceptable standards.  Keep in mind however that even with a dedicated legal team, your input is what will make the process as smooth and efficient as possible.

WEB DOMAINS – REPUTATIONAL RISKS

by

In light of the expansion of web domains that are now available to purchase (previous domains were limited to for example .com and .co.uk), a trend is beginning to arise to purchase domain names that may reduce those companies’ exposure to reputational risks.

It has been reported that the pop star Taylor Swift has purchased “TaylorSwift.adult” and “Taylor Swift.porn”, with Microsoft similarly purchasing “.adult” and “.porn” domains to protect their “Office” brand.

Although it is possible to recover a domain name from a registered owner through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy procedure, it is a requirement to show that the domain name has been registered in bad faith. Furthermore, it may not be possible to raise a claim and recover the domain name on the basis that the domain name infringes a registered trade mark, if the use of the domain name is a legitimate exception which allows the use of another person’s trade mark. It would then be a requirement to use other remedies on the grounds of defamation or malicious falsehood, if they are applicable.

If there are no trademarks, then the common law of passing off may be a viable possibility however all these options are reactionary and the legal costs involved could be significant. Companies should opt to purchase the web domains that may be a risk to their particular brands, before others do so.

WHEN DOES THE AGENT EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY?

by

This question was examined in the high-profile case between celebrity chef, Gordon Ramsey and Gary Love. The focus of this case was the relationship between Gordon Ramsey (“Mr Ramsey”) and his father-in-law Christopher Hutcheson (“Mr Hutcheson”).  In this case the High Court considered the scope of an agent’s authority and the use of a signature machine.

Mr Ramsey had left the management of his business wholly to his father-in-law. Throughout this arrangement, Mr Ramsey did not expect Mr Hutcheson to keep him informed of all the details of the business transactions and he knew that he was not being kept informed of all transactions. Mr Hutcheson used a signature machine to execute the principal’s signature on legal documents, which Mr Ramsey was aware of. A dispute arose about whether Mr Hutcheson had the necessary authority to commit Mr Ramsey to a contact using the signature machine.

The Court examined the working relationship that Mr Ramsey and Mr Hutcheson had, which spanned twenty years. The Court found that the long relationship that the pair had was strengthened by their personal relationship as father-in-law and son-in-law. Their relationship was based on total trust. The Court held that Mr Hutcheson had the sufficient authority to enter into a personal guarantee and contract on Mr Ramsey’s behalf based on the way that they had conducted their dealings in their twenty-year working relationship.

This case highlighted the importance of principals clearly setting out a clear scope of their agents’ authority. By having a clear range of activities set out of what an agent is allowed to do, disputes about agents exceeding their authority can be avoided. This matter also demonstrated that signature machines can bind a party so long as there is appropriate authority to use it. This case will be of importance particularly to family businesses where family members are more likely to have agent/principal relationships centred on trust. Businesses need to be aware of the authority given to its agents and particularly how personal relationships can impact on the authority that an agent has.

BUSINESS SEMINAR – HSBC BANK PLC, CANARY WHARF

by

We are delighted to announce our participation in “Directors’ Corporate Finance Question Time”, a Business seminar to be held on the 26th of February 2015. Our very own Julian Goulding will be on a panel of legal, financial, and tax experts to answer your questions about buying, growing, and selling your business.

[button link=”http://cheyneygoulding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Directors-Corporate-Finance-Question-Time-PDF.pdf” newwindow=”yes”] View PDF [/button]