jmp-final logo

Telephone: 01476 565 295

twitter logo linkedin facebook

law | just more personal

Your Law Masthead

Subscribe to our newsletter

By JMP Solicitors, Apr 13 2018 03:42PM

Earlier today (13 April) , Mr Justice Mark Warby gave further guidance during a ruling in the High Court on an individual’s right to exercise the ‘right to be forgotten’.


This concept initially came from a ruling in the European Court of Justice in 2014, where a Spanish citizen successfully forced Google to remove information with regards to his financial background; this included links to further webpages and news articles. The precedent set, was that if the information is no longer relevant, then an individual can force the company holding this information to delete it.


Today’s High Court ruling focused on two different individuals; one successful in their claim and one unsuccessful. Claimant A was a businessman convicted over 10 years ago for conspiring to intercept communications and was sentenced to six months in jail, and Claimant B who was also a businessman convicted over 10 years ago for conspiring to account falsely and subsequently spent four years in jail.


Both Claimant’s argued that information regarding their convictions should be removed from the Google search engine, as it was no longer relevant. Google defended the claim, on the grounds that they believed it was in the public’s interest that this information continued to be accessible on the Google platform.


Whilst it is true that organisations can refuse to ‘forget’ your personal information on the grounds of public interest (this will continue to be the position even after the implementation of GDPR), Mr Justice Mark Warby provided further guidance on what actually is in the public interest.


Claimant A was successful in their claim and it was heard that this individual had shown remorse for their historic crimes, no longer continuing with these actions. It was for this reason that the Judge found this information was no longer relevant and was not in the public interest for Google to hold.


For Claimant B however, it was heard that individual continued to ‘mislead the public’ since the original conviction. It was therefore the ruling of the Judge, that it was in the public interest that this individual’s convictions were available on Google, and that Google had a legitimate reason to not remove that individual’s personal data from their search engine.


This ruling has given clear guidance on what would be classified as in the public interest and will give organisations a view as to whether or not they can be justified in refusing to ‘forget’ and individual’s data.

The right to be forgotten
The right to be forgotten


By JMP Solicitors, Apr 13 2018 03:19PM

Going into business with a partner, whether it be a partnership or a company, is an exciting time for any business entrepreneur. The hunger and determination for success is a powerful motivator and what could be better than sharing that experience with a close friend, colleague or family member; someone you can trust.


But, the harsh reality of business is that it’s tough. In fact, studies show that in the UK up to 50% of start-up businesses fail and when a business goes through a stormy patch, it’s sometimes surprising to see who is the first to ‘jump ship’. Whilst it’s obvious that all businesses need to avoid unnecessary expenses, investing in a carefully constructed Partnership or Shareholder Agreement could potentially avoid conflict, should it arise further down the line.


All too often, business partners fall out for various reasons and without an agreement from the outset of how these situations are to be handled, things can get very costly, very quickly. A disagreement on who has the final say in a decision or whether or not a new business partner is to join the enterprise, turns into Court fees, Solicitor fees, Barrister fees, Accountant reports – the list goes on.


Partnership and Shareholder Agreements set out the rights of each member and what is to happen should there be any disagreements; the aim is always to avoid any need for legal action. All businesses should aim to be proactive, rather than reactive, and a good Partnership or Shareholder Agreement just might be the best asset your business owns.



By JMP Solicitors, Mar 14 2018 09:55AM

According to the latest information from the Office of National Statistics – ONS – 3.3 million families are now co-habiting and it is the fastest growing sector and the second largest group. Until the law changes though cohabitants need to take a proactive approach to protect them-selves. There is no such thing in law as a “common law relationship”.


Debunking the myth of the common-law spouse
Debunking the myth of the common-law spouse

Cohabiting couples may think they have protection and rights, especially if there is a home or children involved, but without the right legal protection people can be left high and dry.


Couples living together have fewer rights than if they were to be married or in a civil partnership. It affects the entitlement to estate on the demise of one or other of the couple, property shares if you split up and access and parental responsibility of children.


Here’s how you can protect your rights.


Wills and inheritance – couples living together have no automatic right to each other’s assets on death. If no will has been made, the rules of intestacy mean that the estate passes to the next of kin (this can be an estranged child of a former relationship from many years in the past.) Or the Crown if no next of kin can be fund. Our advice is to make a mirrored will. A mirrored will is suitable for couples who have similar or identical wishes.


Property – if you split up and one of the couple owns the property, the other will have no automatic right at any share of it. If you buy a property as a couple it is advisable to instruct your lawyer to purchase the property jointly.


If you are living together now and the house belongs to one party, you can get a cohabitation agreement drawn up which formalises each person’s rights and responsibilities towards each other – slightly unromantic - but they can help you out of a jam of the relationship breaks down and will avoid costly litigation. You can also protect your interest in property .


Children and parental responsibility – if the child was born after 1 December 2003 and both parents register the birth the child has shared parental responsibility. Otherwise it is the mother that has parental responsibility and they can not lose it (except by adoption, rarely a court order). If you are a father or partner of a child and you have not jointly registered the birth you can set up a parental responsibility agreement. You don’t need a lawyer for this. You can download the form from the Government’s website and follow the instructions for registration.





RSS Feed

Articles published on this news page are intended for information only and should not be treated as legal advice.

 

JMP Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for any loss as a result of any act or omissions taken in respect of any article appearing on this page (or linked from it).

 

To receive specific legal advice in respect of any legal matter please contact your nearest JMP Solicitors office.