News Room

This is a very big question that can only really be answered (in terms you will understand) by someone with vast experience in the subject. That person is our Managing Director, Andrew Stripe, who has specialised in this area of commercial litigation since 1983.

Andrew Stripe Commercial Litigation Specialist at Stripes Solicitors Manchester

In the Special Report “Everything you always wanted to know about Commercial Litigation but were afraid to ask” you will learn all you need to understand the processes involved in commercial litigation and the potential costs and benefits.

From 1st January 2012, employers operating salary sacrifice schemes will need to consider how best to deal with them in the light of the Revenue and Customs recent briefs 28/11 and 36/11 which document a change in the VAT accounting on salary sacrifice schemes.

These briefings follow the decision reached in a recent case where AstraZeneca appeared before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Astra Zeneca operated a flexible remuneration package scheme under which employees could opt to take part of their remuneration in the form of goods and/or services rather than as salary. The case concerned the correct VAT treatment of high street shopping vouchers provided to employees as one of the options of the scheme.

The Court found that the provision of vouchers amounted to a supply of services effected for consideration. Consequently, whilst AstraZeneca was able to recover VAT incurred on acquiring the vouchers, output tax was due on the consideration received from its employees. Although this case involved the supply of vouchers to employees, the principles considered by the Court are of general application and will apply to other supplies of goods and services to employees.

In the past, HM Revenue and Customs have differentiated between benefits provided to employees by way of deduction from salary and benefits provided by way of salary sacrifice (where an employee has permanently given up the right to salary in return for goods or services). Businesses did not have to account for VAT in respect of salary sacrifice schemes.

As a consequence of the (CJEU) decision, it is important for employers running salary sacrifice schemes to consider the VAT implications of not only shopping vouchers but other benefits such as the VAT on hire charges of bicycles in ‘cycle to work’ schemes etc. Except for the administration charges paid to the providers of childcare vouchers, the vouchers themselves fall outside of the decision but if you require advice on this complicated area of law, please do not hesitate to contact us at Stripes Solicitors.

Following on from my last blog on internet passwords and will making, it appears that fraudsters are increasingly targeting the estates of deceased individuals for details of valuable internet-hosted assets such as online bank accounts.

Changes in attitude and approach to probate have led to people making a will attempting to help their Executors by leaving details in their wills of passwords, pin numbers and other digital access codes.

However, it is important to note that although confidential when made, following death a will goes to probate and, at this stage, it becomes a document of public record. This allows fraudsters to read and exploit what should be confidential information.

The solution is simple: leave a note of online codes in a sealed envelope, which either your solicitor bank or accountant can retain for safe keeping.

Law Society wills and equity committee chair Richard Roberts commented:

‘We advise clients to protect passwords in the same way that we have always protected burglar alarm codes and the keys to safes and strong rooms. Make sure the executors know where to find them, usually in a side letter lodged with the solicitors.’

Once again we can see the importance of tuning in our thinking to the way in which the new digital age impacts on our traditional processes and practices. At Stripes Solicitors, we are fully aware of the many conflicts that the digital age has created for this traditional area of law, so if you require any advice or assistance in connection with making or changing a will please do not hesitate to contact one of our specialists.

It is extremely frustrating that having accepted an employers business and their  insurance premiums the insurance industry  continues to challenge the rights of those with asbestos related diseases.

One such asbestos related disease is pleural plaques, a symptomless thickening of lung membranes. People with this disease have not been able to  claim compensation since 17 October 2007 and prior to this ones ability to claim was extremely limited.

Although some people can survive without ill effects or knowledge that they have pleural plaques sufferers can endure years of anxiety and distress, breathlessness and a general deterioration  in their ability to perform tasks to a previous level. Many believe compensation should be available for this including Clydeside Action On Asbestos, who argued that the benign scarring on lungs proves past exposure to asbestos and increases the risk of fatal disease.

The insurance industry’s latest attempts to undermine the system have failed as the Supreme Court in London has ruled on the validity of Scotland’s law on compensation for pleural plaque patients, by backing the right of people in Scotland to claim damages. However if you have pleural plaques due to asbestos exposure in England and Wales there is no entitlement to compensation. Disappointingly  the UK Government has so far declined to follow the decision  of the Scottish Government – we can but hope they may change their mind!

If you or anyone you know is  affected by  exposure to asbestos or pleural plaques do not hesitate to contact Stripes Solicitors for advice on 0161 832 5000 and ask to speak to a specialist in our Industrial Disease team.

A recent survey by Goldsmiths University Creative and Social Technology Centre in London, on behalf of Rackspace, found that one in ten people are leaving details of internet passwords in their wills so that family can access their internet accounts including their Facebook, Flickr and Twitter profiles. More people  are storing personal photos, home videos and often valuable music and films digitally  rather than as physical albums at home. They are keen to pass these to loved ones and  often want their digital identities to be archived and not abused when they are gone.

Without passwords, family members are often unable to access a deceased relative’s internet sites and these can fall prey to spammers.

During the last couple of years, numerous Facebook accounts have been hijacked where deceased individuals are no longer here to control their digital identity. With more documents and photos being stored online the question  of what happens when someone is gone becomes a more important issue each day.

It is essential that people start thinking about the issue of digital inheritance so that this can be accommodated and properly dealt with in their will. This is relatively straightforward. If you have any queries or requirements in connection with protecting your digital legacy or otherwise in making a will then Stripes have people available that can offer you specialist advice and support in this area.

Chancellor George Osborne told the Conservative Party conference in Manchester yesterday, 3rd September, that the Government plans to introduce a charge for taking a case to an employment tribunal. The new charging policy is expected to apply from April 2013 and in the interim the Government will consult on the level and structure of the fees.

Litigants will only recover the Tribunal fee if they win their case. The Chancellor believes that this action will reduce the risk to small businesses of hiring new people.

He told conference delegates it was imperative ‘to respect the right of those who have spent their whole lives building a small business not to see that achievement destroyed by a vexatious appeal to an employment tribunal’

The Government also intends to double to two years the amount of time someone must be employed before they can pursue an unfair dismissal claim.

Despite the Chancellors good intentions it seems to be another example of a Government not listening to lawyers and announcing, ill thought out and counter-productive legislation. The vast majority of Employment Tribunal claims (approximately 80% ), settle. Settling usually means that the employer (or their insurer) pays the employee a sum of money, often to prevent a case being heard and running up further legal fees.

If an employee has paid, say £1,000, to bring a claim, who will be responsible for paying this as part of the settlement? The employer! So much for saving them money. The Chancellor appears to have just added another £1,000 to the employer’s bill and earned the Employment Tribunal £1,000. More indirect taxation.