Joint Ownership Causes Problems

Law Society and Land Registry have warned that each solicitor has to encourage people who purchase joint property to say who owns what because otherwise later there may be lots of disputes when let’s say a relationship breaks down.

These will make best if they make a declaration of trust using the Land Registry form JO.

Such problems appear not only between unmarried couples but also between business partners, friends and even family members who own something together.

This practice started because of recent court decisions, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott[2011] UKSC 53 according to which joint home buyers have to define what exactly their property is and record their interests in this property.

The Land Registry JO form appears as an alternative way for joint owners to give information about their interests and details of an existing separate declaration of trust, at the time when they acquire the property.

Jonathan Smithers said: ‘I am pleased that the Law Society and Land Registry have worked together to provide detailed and up to date advice to solicitors practicing in what is a complicated area of the law. ‘The note will direct solicitors to the practical implications of statements made in recent cases so that their clients can continue to receive the best advice possible.’

As a reputable website, providing legal services online, The Legal Stop invites you to take advantage on our legal documents and fixed-fee legal advice services.



An Approval from Partner for a Gun License

Recently the home secretary Theresa May offered that people who apply for gun licenses have to bring with them proof of consent from the partner they are now with or from their former one. According to her it was “not appropriate” to allow people get gun licenses in the cases when there were evidence on domestic violence.

Ministers cooperating with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) will try to convince people that domestic violence perpetrators should not be furnished with weapons.

In her letter May also mentioned that the consultation with the partners is a Canadian practice but it is still not established if it will really help reducing the risk of domestic violence.

The shooting of 12 people inCumbriamade the government raise concerns that “involving partners and recent ex-partners in signing applications may put them in a position of vulnerability and increased risk of renewed violence and abuse”.

After this case a recommendation came from the Home Affairs Committee’s 2010 report according to which not only people who had been sent to jail should be banned owning guns but also those with suspended sentences.

Nowadays people with sentences up to three year are not allowed to use guns for five years and those with sentences of five years or more got permanent bans.

Derrick Bird, the men who killed 12 people, was found guilty of theft twenty years ealier but was later allowed to get his gun license.

Currently in the UK the local police officer gives a certificate granting that the applicant has “good reason” for owning one. When filling this application the officer takes into consideration criminal records, mental health problems and past alcohol or drug abuse.

You might need an approval from your partner to get a gun, however this is not the case with our free legal documents!


An Employee Wins Discrimination Case In European Court

An employee of British Airways won a case in the European Court of Human Rights claiming she felt discriminated because of the fact she was not allowed to wear a cross around her neck.

On the other hand, the result of three other similar cases turned to be unsuccessful.

In September 2006 Nadia Eweida was sent back home just because she said she would not remove the cross around her neck because this presented her faith. The airline changed their policy toward uniforms in next February and until then she did not go to work. According to her during the period she was off work she had lost around £3,500.

In the words of Ms Eweida members of other religions were allowed to wear religious symbols so she just wanted to have the same rights and wear her cross. She has spent years inUKand European courts until she managed to persuade people this was a violation of her human rights. In the end she felt “jubilant” on the decision the court made.

David Cameron wrote on twitter that “ppl [sic] shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs.”

The other three similar cases brought to court were rejected.

Being a nurse Shirley Chaplin was told she had to remove her cross because of health and safety purposes.  Ms Ladale lost her job because she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies and Mr. McFarlane because he was unwilling to offer sex therapy to couples with homosexual tastes.

Mr. McFarlane said he would not stop trying to win the case: “I don’t seek to make judgements about peoples’ rights to live the way they do,” said McFarlane, “but it creates a conflict for me…I would seek some reasonable accommodation of that view.”

Protect your business by downloading the Equal Opportunities Policy Template by The Legal Stop


Insult Law needs Changes

It has been announced that the law related to the use of “insulting” language will be changed only for the occasions when a specific victim is being abused.

Due to the words of Theresa May the idea is that the term “insulting” needs to be removed from the part of the Public Order Act 1986 which reads: “A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”.

The aim of this campaign is to prove that sometimes police uses this law in order to arrest people with no other offences committed.

An example of this was a student who got arrested because of saying the police horse was gay. However, in the end he was not found guilty.

Last November the House of Lords voted on the removal of the word “insulting” from the act. The final result was 150 votes pro and 54 votes against the removal.

Today Theresa May said that in the end the amendment to the law would not be challenged.

No matter that policed claims this law is being “valuable” for maintaining order, Theresa said that the current state of the legislation was interfering with the public’s right to freedom of expression.

“Looking at past cases the director of public prosecutions could not identify any where the behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as abusive as well as insulting,” said May.

“He has stated that the word insulting could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

Despite everything, if the victim is clearly identifiable it will still be against the law to use insulting language.


Politicians Accused of Seeking Revenge Against Press

According to a statement of Lords Stevens of Ludgate the motives of politicians and celebrities for changes in the laws concerning press are probably not that noble.
His report suggested that there should be a new independent body regulating the press.

The coalition government is never able to reach a common decision- David Cameron disagreed to the idea of changes in press regulation, while the Liberal Democrats and Labour supported the proposal of law changes.

The peer of the UK Independence Party, Lord Stevens, claims MP’s and peers think of the recommended changes as of an opportunity for revenge, “to get back at the press for disclosing all their shenanigans over expenses”.

He was also interested on the motives of celebrities to apply for stricter press control.

“Since the press holds the Government to account, the Government clearly must not regulate newspapers,” Lord Stevens said.

The independent editor Chris Blackhurst also thought that if politics decide on the making of a new legislation to regulate press this will be only because they want to revenge the press.

“Once a draft Bill goes into the Commons and the Lords and once they get their teeth into it they can add all sorts of amendments,” Blackhurst said ominously. “That’s where the revenge will happen. That’s one reason why some of us are very keen that there should not be statute.” The view of Lord Stevens was different from that of the other peers.

The former deputy PM, Lord Prescott said:“The industry have used the same old trick, you delay it in discussion and get near the election and avoid doing anything about it.”

No matter what will happen with the bill, The Legal Stop will continue to provide you with legal documents online.


No changes in Law on High-Stakes Gambling Machines

Despite the shared concerns of the campaign group the government decided that they will not vote on more stringent regulations on high-stakes gambling machines.

This group was formed in order to make gambling fairer. They warned the government that there are easily available machines which allow people to place bets of up to £100 for a potential payout of £500. This makes them think they may earn easy money and because of this they become addicted to gambling.

Hugh Robertson, the culture minister, said he does not find enough evidence on what the group claimed. Because of him the Responsible Gambling Trust now undertakes a study on the machines with the aim to find out if such a problem really exists or not.

“This is one of those quite tricky areas where common sense suggests there is a major problem but there is a lack of evidence to back this up,” he claimed.

However, not only the Campaign for Fairer Gambling but also some of the MP’s believe the evidence is just enough so that the law changes.

In the words of labour MP Kelvin Hopkins the high-stakes betting machines are “the crack cocaine of problem gambling”.

On the other hand, a study of the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee showed just the opposite- that the regulation on these machines should be loosened.

In response to this the Campaign for Fairer Gambling stated an opinion that such machines should be seen only in casinos.

The plans of the campaign point out that each shop should be permitted to have only one machine and the maximum stake for machines in betting shops should be £2. As a result people will be discouraged and will not gamble that much.

The government has no intentions to change the current situation so bookmakers will keep on earning money in the same way they do now.

If you need document drafting for your gambling business, do not hesitate to get in touch and send us a Document drafting request.

A Foreign Court Treated Civil Partnership as Marriage

A gay couple that was some time ago granted the status of civil partners in the UK was now recognized by a court in Canada for officially married.

The Supreme Court Justice Ruth Mesbur said that this marriage had to be treated as a legal one in the same way as in any other country, otherwise it could be regarded as discrimination.

After some time the relationship between Wayne Hincks and Gerardo Gallardo deteriorated.Waynewanted to initiate divorce proceedings but his spouse refused, thinking that the fact they changed their living place toTorontowould probably influence their status and it would not be the same as in theUK.

The decision of the Supreme Court Justice Ruth Mesbur was really surprising:

“It seems to me that to do anything other than recognise this particular civil partnership as a marriage would run contrary to the express values of Canadian society,” she stated, “and would constitute impermissible discrimination.”

As this is the first time that overseas court has ruled on the issue, this decision was quite shocking.

For Hincks this seemed as a “victory for equality”. He said he hoped this case would makeUKgovernment start thinking of civil partnership and marriage as of equal things.

He commented: “If another country says that there is no difference between civil partnership and marriage then I don’t see why the entities should exist separately here.”

In the UK marriage and civil partnership are still separate, and treated as different, just like the Confidentiality agreement, which can be Mutual or Unilateral


Planned Changes in Monitoring of Prisoners

The probation service in England and Wales is about to change but this will not influence the former prisoners and offenders serving community sentences to private firms.

The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, will announce these changes, according to which companies in the private sector  will supervise about 200, 000 medium- to low-risk offenders. Due to these actions, they will be rewarded by the government.

The offenders who are convicted of sexual or serious violent crimes, which are about 50, 000, will stay under the state-run probation service.

Many critics gave their opinion that if these changes do happen the public will be put at serious risk. One of the probation officers shared his thoughts that the scheme was rushed and the consequences will probably not be as those expected.

“Re-offending rates for the individuals that probation does supervise are much improved; those who participate in programmes have a re-offending rate now of 35%,” he commented. “This is a success story that the government should be building on, not destroying.”

However, Grayling defended the changes, saying: “We know across the public, private and voluntary sectors there is a wealth of expertise and experience; we need to unlock that so we can finally begin to bring down our stubbornly high re-offending rates.”

Those who served custodial sentences should also be introduced a compulsory rehabilitation.

Now the offer for prisoners with sentences of less than a year is simply voluntary rehabilitation.

The aim of the rehabilitation process is to reintegrate ex-prisoners into the society.

May be very soon, we start reciving document template requests for employment documents related to the new changes.


A general overview on lone workers and the legal implications employers face with lone working.

Several jobs can require people to work alone. Lone workers are people who work by themselves without close or direct supervision.

There is no specific law dealing with lone working. However, all health and safety legislation apply equally to lone workers.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 states that employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees; the Act also applies to lone workers.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to make suitable and sufficient assessments of risks to their employees. Employers are also required to make arrangements for the health and safety of employees by effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review. If the risk assessment shows that it is not possible for the work to be done safely by a lone worker, then other arrangements should be put in place.

Unfortunately employers often forget their responsibilities to lone workers, in particular in respect of issues such as risk assessment, welfare provision, recording of injuries, first aid provision and consultation.

Many of the hazards that lone workers face are similar to those faced by other workers. However, the risks involved may be greater because the worker is on their own. Thus, protection of lone workers must start with a full risk assessment of the work that lone workers do. Risk assessment should help employers decide on the right level of supervision.

The HSE, in its guidance on lone working, stresses that the risks must be assessed and controlled and says that employers of lone workers should:

  • involve staff or their representatives when undertaking the required risk assessment process;
  • take steps to check control measures are in place (examples of control measures include instruction, training, supervision and issuing protective equipment);
  • review risk assessments annually or, when there has been a significant change in working practice;
  • when a risk assessment shows it is not possible for the work to be conducted safely by a lone worker, address that risk by, for example, making arrangements to provide help or back-up; and
  • where a lone worker is working at another employer’s workplace, that employer should inform the lone worker’s employer of any risks and the required control measures.

Employers generally think that lone workers are covered by the same policies that apply to other employees. This assumption is wrong because even if many of the risks faced by lone workers are the same as those faced by other workers, lone workers also face increased and additional risk.

It is paramount for employers to have a Lone Working Policy in place in order to comply with their legal obligations. The purpose of a well drafted Lone Working Policy is to ensure that there are adequate systems in place to ensure the health, safety and welfare of lone workers in order to reduce the risks of lone working as far as is reasonably possible and practicable. It should set out the steps employers should take in order to comply with their legal duties to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. It should also provide the framework for identifying the possible risks faced by lone workers and outlines the procedure that must be followed to minimize or pre-empt those risks in order to comply with The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The Legal Stop provides several online fixed fee legal services including legal and business document templates. All of our templates are professionally drafted and written in plain English. We recently introduced a new service: Request a Template Service where If you cannot find on our large database of documents the template you are looking for, then by just filling in a short online form within 48 hours you will receive your template at no extra cost!

Campaign Group Publishes Draft Leveson Bill

A group formed by the victims of phone hacking announced the way they see the draft bill that would enshrine in law the Levenson’s report proposals.

In their opinion, due to the pressure from newspaper publishers, the call for an independent press regulation proposed by Lord Justice Levenson, will not materialize.

The parents of the murder victim Milly Dowler and those of the missing Madelaine McCann were also part of this group. They have put a bill drafted by their chairman, Hugh Tomlinson QC, in conjunction with specialist Parliamentary Counsel Daniel Greenberg.

No matter the fact that the report of Levenson has the support of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Prime Minister David Cameron said he did not agree with the idea of changing the law because of the press regulation. The changes Levenson wants would create a statutory underpinning for the work of a regulatory body for the press so that they will become sure they are able to act against newspapers and achieve the demanded results and freedom of the press.

The group found out that according to the conservative ministers this idea is unnecessary and difficult to happen but with this draft bill they at least managed to demonstrate that their proposals are workable.

The words of the director of Hacked Off, Professor Brian Cathcart, sounded like this:

“The right thing to do now is to implement the judge’s recommendations on press regulation in full and without delay. Our draft Bill – the Leveson Bill – offers a plain and straightforward way of doing that.

“This is not a bill for press regulation as Hacked Off or anyone else would wish it: it is a bill to underpin voluntary press self-regulation in the way Lord Justice Leveson wanted it.”

Find a wide varity of business and corporate legal documents at The Legal Stop, although not related to the Leveson proposal, they will  be useful for your buisness.