A settlement agreement is a legally binding agreement which is made following the termination of your employment and/or an agreement to bring a dispute with your employer to an end.A settlement agreement can be written in a legalistic language and refer to specific statutes and regulations. One of the most important term of your settlement agreement is that you must take legal advice on the terms of the agreement and your advisor must provide your employer with an Advisor Certificate confirming that you received independent legal advice from a qualified advisor.We are experience in providing specialist independent legal advice in relation to settlement agreements and will ensure that you receive relevant and accurate advice. We have been representing and negotiating settlement agreement for more than 20 years, helping to ensure clients are adequately compensated without the need to bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal.THE SERVICE WE OFFEROur service is paid by your employer so it is FREE OF CHARGE for you.An experienced qualified lawyer will review your settlement agreement terms and conditions and provide you with legal advice and recommendations on the terms of the agreement based on your instructions, delivered within 1 working days.The service includes:An initial 10-minute call to clarify the circumstances leading to you being offered a settlement agreement and taking instructions from you.  A review of your settlement agreement.Remote meeting where the legal advisor will advise you on every term in the agreement and ensure that you understood it all before signing the agreement.Delivery of your signed settlement agreement and signed Advisor certificate on the same day to your employer.Liaising with the employer; A follow-up email providing you with your settlement agreement signed by both parties.The service excludes:Any drafting or revision of the wording of your settlement agreement.Any change in original instructions.Any negotiation with your employer; Further communication on the matter outside the services offered above.Detailed advice on the merits of your potential Employment law claim.What’s Next:If you are happy with the above, simply contact us and we can get started.Assumptions this service is based upon:You agree to sign the settlement agreement following the advice;You have read, understood what this service includes, excludes, and determined that it meets your specific needs.The only governing law is that of England & Wales.What you need to provide:The first step after purchase will be to provide verification of your identity as listed below:Photo ID: A copy of a valid passport or driving licenceCopy bank statement or utility bill within 3 monthsContact details of your HR managerCopy of the settlement agreement;Your comments, questions and concerns you wish to raise relating to the terms and conditions of your settlement agreement.We want to support you!If you have any questions you would like to raise regarding employment law, please get in touch.We also provide a tailored advice on the merits of your claim and negotiating a better deal for you with your employer.If you are also interested in further detailed advice not covered in the above, simply contact us with an outline of your requirements. We will provide a tailored quote to meet your needs.Manak Solicitors

A charity representing self-employed mothers have lost their legal challenge against the government for indirect sexual discrimination over the amount of financial support received during Covid-19. Pregnant Then Screwed’s legal challenge stemmed from discrepancies received through the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS), in the wake of Covid-19. SEISS, along with the furlough scheme, based support grants for self-employed people based on average profits made between 2016-2019. Therefore, anyone who had taken maternity leave during that time would have naturally incurred a loss in earnings, which negatively impacted their calculations for SEISS grants. An estimated 75,000 women who took maternity leave over the last few years missed out on a significant amount of money that they would have earned, especially in relation to male and childless counterparts in the same profession.However, Mrs Justice Whipple claimed that the Treasury had “good reason for adopting an approach that was simple and which used one rule, one approach, applicable to all”. As well as this, it was stated that adopting different measures to account for separate circumstances would have involved new expense and would have led to delays in rolling out the scheme at a time when people needed assistance urgently. Speaking in support of the ruling, a Treasury spokesperson said that the package for self-employed people is “one of the most generous in the world”, with over £280bn invested to protect jobs and businesses during the pandemic.Pregnant Then Screwed are naturally opposed to the ruling, calling the judgement “fundamentally flawed” and containing “serious legal errors”.A spokesperson for the group said that they were concerned for vulnerable new mothers who are receiving far less than their male and childless counterparts in the face of an incredibly difficult time. They have said the group are considering its options for appeal. If you have any concerns regarding your income or employment at the moment, be it related to the pandemic or not, our expert team of employment solicitors are only a call or message away from helping you make sense of your legal situation. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has told Russia that it must free political opponent and critic of Vladimir Putin, Alexei Navalny. The court ruling stated that Mr Navalny be granted temporary release from jail as the Russian government were unable to provide adequate proof that there were safeguards to his health and safety in place while in custody. Russia have not responded kindly and will ignore the ruling, referring to it as ‘gross interference in the judicial affairs of a sovereign state’. Russia’s Justice Minister called the ruling ‘unenforceable’ and that there was no legal basis upon which to release Mr Navalny from custody.  The dispute poses a difficult international legal situation. While Russia have a legal obligation to abide with rulings of the ECHR as per their membership of the Council of Europe, they have previous form in unilaterally ignoring them. In 2014, they were ordered to pay nearly €2billon in compensation to shareholders of the Yukos oil empire assembled by oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was jailed for tax evasion and fraud with the company broken up into state controlled firms. They did not abide with this ruling either. In fact, last year Russia adopted new constitutional amendments that stated that they had the right to ignore any and all international legal decisions that they deemed violated their national sovereignty. Actions like these leave room for large discussions as to the effectiveness of international courts where rulings can be accepted and rejected by governments such as Russia’s. After a suspected FSB poisoning, which he claims was orchestrated by Vladimir Putin, Mr Navalny says his life is in danger while in custody. He is currently incarcerated due to violating parole from a 2014 sentence, with further jail time on the cards as the government presses new charges. His original conviction was an embezzlement charge, widely seen as politically motivated, for which he will soon appear in court to appeal.

Uber has lost its battle in the Supreme Court over drivers’ rights in a decision that will have enormous implications those in the gig economy.The UK’s highest court ruled against the taxi app firm, concluding drivers should be classed as ‘workers’ and not independent third-party contractors. This means they are entitled by law to basic employment protections which include minimum wage and holiday pay.This decision now opens the door for drivers to claim compensation running into thousands of pounds. The scale of what could come is highlighted by the fact that there are over 60,000 Uber drivers in the UK today.Uber’s case was dismissed unanimously by seven justices. Yaseen Aslam, co-lead claimant and App Drivers & Couriers Union president said: “I am overjoyed and greatly relieved by this decision which will bring relief to so many workers in the gig economy who so desperately need it.”Mick Rix, GMB national officer, said: “This has been a gruelling four-year legal battle for our members – but it’s ended in a historic win.“The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of three previous courts, backing up what GMB has said all along; Uber drivers are workers and entitled to breaks, holiday pay and minimum wage.“Uber must now stop wasting time and money pursuing lost legal causes and do what’s right by the drivers who prop up its empire.”If you have concerns regarding your employment, our employment solicitors are only a call or message away, ready to assist you with your case.

In an effort to hit their targets of getting the UK to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, the government are reportedly considering introducing a “carbon tax” on products whose production involves high emissions. This includes meats and other staple groceries, a move which many predict won’t be popular, especially at a time of large economic uncertainty. While Labour have responded that the economy might not be strong enough at the moment to take the brunt of new taxes, economists have been optimistic about carbon taxes as a straightforward climate solution. The adverse effects of carbon emissions and burning of fossil fuels are rarely, if ever, factored into a manufacturer’s own production costs, so there are no incentives to minimise emissions. Carbon taxes would hypothetically remedy this situation, hopefully driving changes to production methods to minimise ecologically unfriendly practices. It is also hoped that, with more of an economic and financial stake in limited emissions, more investment and research into reaching carbon neutral solutions will be a priority. However, despite these measures being unpopular with powerful interest groups, the UK government’s independent Climate Change Commission (CCC) is in favour of ministers exploring carbon taxes. They cite the low global oil prices – and through extension consumer energy costs – as a reason why now could be a good time to impose them. With the rise in more laws and legislation, both internally and internationally, regarding carbon emissions and climate change, these areas are always worth keeping a look out for. It’s a great example of how single pieces of legislation could immediately impact the day to day lives of individual consumers, international corporations, and the planet as a whole. 

It’s been revealed that the Royal Family has been using procedure to vet acts of Parliament regarding leaseholders living in Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall estate for years. The Queen and Prince were allowed to view the contents of acts to approve them before they were passed to Parliament, giving them the opportunity to amend them in order to protect the Prince’s income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Three named acts, spanning decades, were written in order to give leaseholders of properties the right to buy their homes outright in certain exemptions. However, these acts were modified to exclude many people living in the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince’s 52,000 hectare estate which spans multiple counties.The estate provides the Prince with an independent income of around £22m a year, with scores of people living across it.The three named acts that were vetted by the Royal Family were the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act, the 1993 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, and the 2002 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act. All these acts gave many people living in certain exceptions the right to purchase their homes outright and become freeholders, giving them full control off the asset and improve future sell-on ability. The intervention has left thousands of leaseholders across the Duchy of Cornwall struggling to get a fair valuation for their property if they wish to sell on, regardless of how much they themselves have invested in it. These cases piqued our interest in particular as experts in conveyancing and property law. If you have any questions regarding conveyancing, lease holding, freeholding or other enquiries about the property market, we’d love to hear from you. 

It’s no secret that 2020 was a difficult time for most of us, with 2021 looking like it’s going to be another tumultuous year. From Brexit to Covid-19, family law is set to look a bit different this year, with everything from attitudes to practices changing dramatically. To keep you informed, we’ve compiled a few trends in family law that we think will be important in 2021. Remote court hearingsWe’ve seen a rise in remote court hearings over the last year due to Covid-19; however, many solicitors and legal professionals see their shelf life lasting long after the (eventual) end of the pandemic. The family courts moved quicker than most back in March 2020 and in a matter of weeks had most cases being seen remotely, either through telephone of video call. It is set to do so for the foreseeable. There will, however, be guidance about the types of hearing where a remote option is not appropriate, such as final hearings in care proceedings. Many cases are set to look like hybrid hearings, with some people appearing in person, with others calling in remotely. The online portalSolicitors are now able to file divorces through an online portal called My HMCTS. This portal has, in its short lifespan, already reduced wait times to approve a financial consent order from over three months to a matter of days. It has a similar record for reducing time spent processing uncontested divorces. Post-Brexit international family issuesBefore Brexit, divorces with different parties over multiple countries used a ‘first past the post’ system where whichever country had the proceedings filed in first would have priority and would deal with the divorce and financial consequences. This is no longer the case. In cross-border cases in 2021 and beyond, we’ll be looking at competing proceedings in different countries. The English Court will apply a test to know which court is most appropriate to make decisions in individual cases of divorce. There will also be big changes to cross-border enforcement of children orders as well as financial awards. Unfortunately, 2021 looks like it could be a complicated time of uncertainty for international families.No Fault DivorceThe long awaited ‘no fault divorce’ is said to finally come to pass in the UK in Autumn 2021, after legislation regarding it passed in June 2020. While these new divorces will have a minimum ‘reflection period’ of 26 weeks, it will allow parties to divorce more simply if the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This means that couples won’t have to prove adultery, unreasonable behaviour, or go through a period of separation before divorcing.Variation applicationsA variation application is a proposed change to the terms of an order relating to children or spousal support, usually in the case of a change of circumstances. We usually see a large rise in variation applications in times of economic uncertainty and downturn, which unfortunately 2020 proved to be.With the economy being hit badly by Covid-19, many people have seen their financial situation become less stable and so the number of variation applications has risen and looks set to remain high while the economy recovers. Continued disruption to hearingsDespite moving more and more to remote hearings, there are still huge delays with cases in the family courts, which were already quite congested before the pandemic. Due to the, at times frustrating, telephone hearings, many couples in 2020 decided to take the private arbitration route along with private FDR hearings. Many see this trend continuing with disputes being settled by arbitration or private dispute resolution packages. There was also a rise in ‘hybrid mediation’, where a lawyer would attend a mediation session to fast track the process. Undergoing legal proceedings regarding family issues is rarely a simple and pleasant matter, let alone during uncertain times like these. Regardless of the recent changes or your own situation, our compassionate, professional team of family lawyers are here to listen to any concerns of questions you might have. 

New legislating is being put in place in order to curb the addictive and dangerous effects of online slot machines. Tougher measures will be placed on operators in order to protect players. Online slot machines currently generate around £2.2 billion for gambling companies, the largest online revenue stream in the industry. This is down in no small part to tactics and stimuli previously used in order to make them the most addictive online game on these gambling websites. They have, by far, the highest average losses per player of any online gambling product, with players being able to generate thousands of pounds in losses in a matter of minutes. The Gambling Commission, galvanised by growing concern over the harm being caused by online gambling during national lockdowns, has said that new measures will be put in place from October 2021. Under new rules, operators will have to slow down games to a maximum speed of 2.5 seconds per spin, discouraging continuous spins and generation of further losses. They will also be required to stop using sounds, lights, and other stimuli to make losses feel like wins. Auto-play options will be removed, along with ‘reverse withdrawals’, options to allow players to change their mind about withdrawing winnings and wagering them again instead. Finally, all online slot machine games will have to clearly display how much time a player has played the game, as well as a clear record of wins and losses. The nature of online platforms such as gambling websites means that games and ways of interacting with the public are constantly changing and innovating. Protecting the public and keeping up with changing markets poses constant legal challenges in order to keep legislation relevant and effective. 

The House of Lords has inflicted a heavy blow to the government by voting for a second time to amend a trade bill in the hope of giving British courts a role in deciding whether or not a country is committing genocide. Peers voted with a majority of 171 to insist that the UK courts be handed the ruling and the issue will now return to the House of Commons, where Conservative ministers will oppose the measure. The amendments to the trade bill regarding genocide provide a sticking point for the government because they would require the UK to review any bilateral trade agreements with China due to their human rights record. Recent treatment on behalf of Beijing to Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, as well as the suppression of Hong Kong’s liberties, have caused widespread condemnation with many MPs seeking to take a firmer stance against China.When the issue was first brought to the House of Commons in December, the government faced a major backbench rebellion, seeing its majority go from 80 to 11 so another close vote is expected. However, if the voting patterns from the House of Lords are anything to go by, it won’t make for comfortable reading for the government. It previously voted with a majority of 126 on the issue, so support for giving British courts the right to determine genocidal regimes is growing. Lord Alton, an independent peer, stressed the importance of giving the High Court a role in determining genocide, stating that international criminal courts were less able to make these determinations due to the Chinese ability to veto any such references. There have been counter proposals from the government which don’t involve giving the courts this power, such as a select committee to establish whether or not a country is committing genocide. Among other issues, the main opposition view to this approach is that the government can simply ignore the findings of a select committee.Potentially giving British courts the ability to make such large decisions regarding foreign governments has huge implications not just for our judicial system, but for our international trade. It’s a pivotal time for the British legal sector, so we’re not letting this one out of our sights.