Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter have revolutionised who, how and the speed at which people can communicate, as well as the permanence of that communication. They are fantastic tools for the Twenty First Century but one significant downside of them is that they usually require the disclosure of private information/personal data and the relinquishing of control of it to the websites.
To set up social media identities people almost always need to provide some information from their private lives and some of their personal data. Many people also choose to go one step further and release and therefore lose control over (to an extent) extra private information that can be accessed by anyone, including people they do not know.
This allows third parties to use the individual’s information as a reference tool and can lead to the harvesting and further dissemination of their data, photographs, etc without their consent.
People join social media websites to communicate and share with others, but by doing so they can also find themselves targeted by trolls, stalkers, and the unscrupulous.
Such a situation can cause damage to ones reputation, lead to further infringements of privacy, harassment, distress, and a general feeling of loss of control. There is a fine line between wilful disclosure and psychological exposure.
Social media sites often refuse to remove distressing posts when requested to do so, as we have seen in multiple cases such as when the now imprisoned hate preacher Anjem Choudary posted items on Twitter and YouTube, and the case of the 14 year old suing facebook for not removing pictures of her.
When matters such as the above have been pushed too far, sometimes the only thing that will put a stop to the situation is an injunction from the court. This can be on numerous grounds such as; privacy, or breach of confidence, or harassment, or data protection, or defamation, or malicious falsehood, or copyright, or under human rights legislation.
At MW our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including those who have been victims of social media legal infringements. We represent everyone, not just celebrities and the rich and we offer conditional fee agreements (no win, no fee funding) for these types of cases, where appropriate.
If you feel that you have been subjected to social media legal infringements or wish to talk to one of our specialist social media lawyers, call 0203 551 8500 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are involved in court proceedings to divide assets following a divorce, dissolution of a civil partnership or separation of non-married parties, maintenance for children is most likely to be a factor where children are involved.
The parent who does not live with the child full time and who does not have day-to-day care of the child is known as the non-resident parent. They have a responsibility to pay child maintenance up until the child is a minimum of 16 years old or a maximum age of 20 years old if the child decides to stay enrolled in full time education.
Full time education is defined as being more than 12 hours per week and includes A-levels. Child maintenance is still payable during school breaks and if a child turns 16 years old and leaves school in the summer, child maintenance is usually still payable up until the first week of September of that year.
Non-resident parents do not have to pay child maintenance if the child decides to continue education to advanced study after A-levels, such as college or university. At that point, children are deemed able to work and pay for themselves.
Child maintenance can be agreed privately by the parties directly or through solicitors. Private agreements can be recorded on a private agreement form through the Child Maintenance Options.
This is a flexible option whereby both parties can agree on the amount payable and can change the maintenance rates by agreement if their circumstances change. In addition neither party will have to pay the Child Maintenance Service fees.
However, privately agreed maintenance agreements are not legally binding. If the non-resident parent decides to stop paying the child maintenance agreed, the resident parent cannot enforce the agreement.
If an agreement cannot be made between the parties, the resident parent can make an application to the Child Maintenance Service. There is an online calculator available to help calculate the amount that the non-resident parent will have to pay a month.
The resident parent can apply to the court to have the private agreement or application to the CMS turned into a consent order to make the agreement legally binding.
If the court makes the order and the non-resident parent fails to pay the maintenance agreed in the consent order, the court will have the power to enforce the order.
Under the Children Act 1989 the non-resident parent or resident parent can apply to the court for child maintenance to be paid by way of periodical maintenance payments, a lump sum or by a transfer of property into the sole names of one of the parents.
When deciding an application the court will consider all information in the case and in particular the welfare of the child and will look at the following factors:
Any financial provision that the court orders will last until the child reaches 18 unless they are still in full-time education or there are special reasons why the child maintenance should be continued, for example if the child has a disability.
Please be advised that before the parties apply to the court as above, the parties are expected to try and resolve their issues through negotiation and mediation.
At McMillan Williams, our mission is “To make quality legal services accessible to everyone” including those families struggling with Child Maintenance issues.
If you are going through a separation or wish to talk to one of our specialist family solicitors dealing in Child Maintenance issues please call us on 020 3551 8500 or email us at email@example.com
Unfortunately disagreements between consumers and builders or contractors are commonplace and often arise out of misunderstandings following verbal discussions. Many disputes could be avoided by the parties entering into a written contract before work starts. McMillan William's Building and Construction Dispute Specialist, Hayley Prideaux, discusses when you should enter into a written contract with your builder or contractor, what you should discuss at the outset and what you should put in writing to avoid a dispute.
In an ideal world you should always enter into a written contract when engaging a builder/contractor so that everyone understands precisely what has been agreed. The terms agreed between you should be outlined in a written contract which should be signed and dated by both parties. This is particularly important where the project is complex, you have agreed to make staged payments or where the cost of the work is significant. In addition, if there are any changes to the terms outlined in the contract as the work progresses, which you both agree, those changes should also be set out in writing and signed/dated by you both.
However, we understand that it is not always practical to enter into a written contract. You may also feel awkward about asking your builder/contractor about the same and worry they will not want to work with you, particularly if the job is straightforward. But, even for if you decide not to ask your builder or contractor for a formal written contract, it is important that both parties are clear on what work will be carried out, how much it is going to cost and what will happen if things go wrong.
The more information that can be put in writing, the better.
If you do not want to go to the trouble of making a formal written agreement, we would advise you to discuss your project fully with your builder/contractor and then follow up that conversation in writing as a record. Email is the quickest and easiest way of doing this and will be useful evidence if the project does not go as planned.
You should ensure you discuss the following with your builder or contractor:
If you decide you need a written contract and you do not want to deal with this yourself, you can purchase standard forms of contract from the Joint Contracts Tribunal. These standard contracts are widely used in the building/construction industry and your builder/contractor should be familiar with them. At McMillan Williams we can also assist you with any queries you may have in relation to JCT contracts.
At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone", including those who are in dispute over a construction project.
If you are in dispute or think your relationship with your builder is deteriorating or would like to take advice at an early stage in order to prevent the dispute escalating in the future, call our team of experienced solicitors on 0203 551 8500 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Leonard Supple, a man who died in 2004 leaving an Estate thought to be worth up to £18m, has again found its way into the media forefront after further disputes within the family.
The first of these disputes go back to 2007, was an allegation of fraud in relation to Leonard’s last Will. Leonard’s illegitimate daughter, Lynda Supple, attempted to prove the validity of his last Will (which the terms gave her almost all of his entire £18m wealth) following 3 years of arguments over the distribution of the Estate. In the court action that followed, Leonard’s son Stephen successfully argued that the Will was a forgery and was subsequently asked by the Court to administer the Estate of his father.
Further arguments develop within the family after Lynda then attempted to bring an Inheritance Act 1975 claim against the Estate, where Stephen questioned the eligibility of Lynda Supple in bringing the claim. The result was Leonard acknowledging that Lynda was indeed his half sister and therefore entitled to half of the Estate. Following the same proceedings, Stephen was replaced as Executor of his father’s Estate by an independent Solicitor to run the administration.
Fast forward to 2016, and we find that not only is the Estate not yet distributed, but Lynda has brought further proceedings against him for failing to disclose key documentation in relation to the administration. Key documents which have prevented the administration from continuing. Stephen had been ordered to provide them the previous year and in summary judgement, he was found in contempt of court for failing to disclose the documents and is now facing a potential two year sentence once he is located by the High Court’s tipstaff.
This is certainly an example of an unconventional Estate administration, and it is suffice to say that 99% of administrations will never be this complex or drawn out. However, this case needn’t have been within that 1% either if both Lynda and Stephen had utilised some form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), such as Mediation, back in 2007 when the will was first challenged. Court actions needn’t have been brought, the costs involved could have been drastically reduced and the Estate could have been distributed with much less difficulties.
Mediation is an excellent tool in settling claims and keeping a matter out of the increasingly expensive Court procedures. It can offer a very controlled situation where both parties can put all of their cards on the table and enabling them to focus on the key aspects involved and come to a considered, and quite often more favourable agreement than can be had with traditional negotiation. Not only that, but there is now the possibility of Costs orders being made against parties refusing or ignoring an attempt to settle a claim using ADR.
At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" and our specialist inheritance dispute Solicitors are keen advocates of using Mediation to settle claims, especially in light of its very high success rate and inherent flexibility in the agreement that can be made.
The High Court has ruled that phone hacking claims against The Sun newspaper can now proceed. Mr Justice Mann’s decision makes The Sun the latest target publication for lawyers who are representing phone hacking claimants. Such claims against News Group Newspapers (NGN) can now be brought in relation to both The Sun and the defunct News of the World. Previously phone hacking claims against NGN had solely been commenced in relation to articles in the News of the World.
Whilst there are hundreds of claims of hacking by the News of the World, there are at present, only a handful of alleged phone hacking claims which rely on articles published in The Sun, although this may increase over time.
The Solicitors in our Media Law and Reputation Management Department have first-hand experience of conducting phone hacking cases against NGN in relation to the News of the World and MGN with regard to Mirror Group Newspapers.
They are experienced in telephone and email hacking cases in other situations, such as someone hacking into a spouse’s telephone or email account to access information to assist in a divorce, or when organisations hack into people’s telephones and emails to obtain data from them unlawfully for a variety of reasons.
We firmly believe that “Justice is a Birthright” and that everyone, not just the rich and powerful should be able to defend themselves in court. In recent weeks our team have secured a string of defamation victories against the BBC, The UK Defence Secretary and The Prime Minister.
At MW, our mission is "To make quality legal services accessible to everyone" including those who have been victims of phone hacking. We offer conditional fee agreements (no win, no fee funding) for these types of cases, where appropriate.
If you have been subjected to telephone or email hacking and would like to talk to one of our specialist Solicitors, call us today on 0203 551 8500 or email us at email@example.com. You may be entitled to compensation.