On 1 January 2018, The Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 (IRR17) replaced The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99). For the most part the regulations remain largely unchanged. However, the new regulations introduce a three-point risk based system of regulatory control. Employers will need to apply to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) depending on the work relating to ionising radiation being carried out at their practice. The application will either be notification, registration or an application for consent.
There has recently been significant media coverage about the separation of Ant McPartlin from his wife Lisa Armstrong. Ant and Lisa formed their relationship at the age of 19. Now, at the age of 42, he has a reported net-worth of £62million. Lisa is a high earner in her own right, working as a TV makeup artist.
Today the Supreme Court rejected a plea for relief from a Litigant in Person (LiP) who had failed to strictly adhere to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
By way of background, the case involved Mr Barton who sought to bring a claim for professional negligence against Wright Halsall, his previous solicitors, which was issued on 25 February 2013. The Claim Form would have been served by the Court upon the Defendant, however, pursuant to the exception in CPR 6.4(b) Mr Barton elected to serve it himself.
These new limits have been set by the recently published Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2018. The new limits apply where the event giving rise to compensation or payment occurs on or after 6 April 2018.
This means that where a dismissal or relevant event occurs before this date, the old limits will still apply, irrespective of the date on which compensation is awarded.
With effect from 6 April 2018 the main changes will be:
Disputes regarding the scope and application of repairing obligations in leases frequently arise and, given the financial implications for the parties involved, are significant.
The recent decision in De Havailland Studios Ltd v Peries v Voysey [2017] UKUT 322 (LC) Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) provides a useful reference on the question of choice of whether to repair or replace and whose choice it is.
On 21 January 2018 the Government announced the creation of a new Office for Product Safety Standards (“OPSS”) which is tasked with “identifying consumer risks and managing response to large-scale product recalls and repairs”.
The announcement comes as part the Government’s response to the Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety. The report, published in July 2017, recommended the “need for a centralised technical and scientific resource capability to support decision making and co-ordination of activity of Local Authorities and the businesses they regulate”
Following on from our Private Equity predictions for 2017, our Private Equity and Venture Capital team reflect on activity over the previous 12 months and give their predictions for 2018:
The recent decision in Sackville UK Property Select II (GP) No 1 (1) Sackville UK Property Select II Nominee (1) Ltd (2) v Robertson Taylor Insurance Brokers Ltd (1) Integro Insurance Brokers Ltd (2) [2018] EWHC 122 (Ch) serves as a reminder of the preparation and attention to detail that must be taken when serving break notices.
Introduction
The Court of Appeal made a decision in W Portsmouth & Co Ltd v Lowin [2017] EWCA Civ 2172 at the very end of last year which clarifies some tension between two costs provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules.
Part 36 deals with how costs are awarded when a Part 36 offer for settlement has been in play. CPR 36.17(4)(b) provides that if a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer then costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis.
The legendary Liverpool FC manager Bill Shankly once said “If you are first you are first. If you are second, you are nothing”, and at the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games the competitors strive for a Gold medal. A recent case demonstrates that creditors enforcing a debt should also seek to be first across the finish line.
