What's new in our plethora of law online services? Steve Savory summarises the highlights.
- The new edition of The Employment Tribunals Handbook is now live for subscribers to Employment Law. This is a book that regional employment judge Vivienne Gay said demonstrated “clarity, succinctness, [and] thoroughness at all stages”. One of the many recent cases written up for the new edition is De Souza v Vinci:
“Following controversy over whether the ‘Simmons v Castle’ 10% uplift to civil damages applied to injury to feelings and personal injury awards in the employment tribunals, and a series of conflicting EAT decisions, the Court of Appeal has now confirmed in De Souza v Vinci  EWCA Civ 879 that the uplift does apply. This means that all such awards should be given a 10% uplift.”
- By popular demand, Cornerstone on Social Housing Fraud has been added to Property Law. All subscribers to Property Law will see the title appear automatically in their view. Here the authors discuss the distinction between sub-letting and parting with possession:
“Whilst sub-letting of the whole will encompass the ‘parting with possession’ definition, the latter also covers much wider forms of arrangement. For example, if a tenant purports to assign their tenancy to a third party and allows the latter into exclusive occupation in anticipation of the same, then this may constitute parting with possession, the elements for a tenancy being entirely absent to allow a finding of sub-letting. Similarly, an unauthorised tenants’ ‘swap’ of properties would not be sub-letting, but would, in all probability, constitute a parting with possession.”
- As ever, plenty of interest in the latest issue of Family Court Reports. Particularly notable were Peter Jackson LJ’s comments on hair strand testing for drug abuse where a child had been removed from a mother’s care:
“Efforts to understand the significance of tests were hampered by the lack of a common vocabulary to describe results in the very low ranges, Descriptions such as ‘positive’, ‘negative’, ‘indicates that’ and ‘not detected’ could be used and understood vaguely or incorrectly. The creation of a common vocabulary across the industry could only be achieved by a body such as the Society of Hair Testing. In the absence of uniformity, reporters should define their terms precisely so that they could be accurately understood.”
- A particularly notable title added to International Arbitration this month was Dalhuisen on Transnational Comparative, Commercial, Financial and Trade Law, an enormous, three volume work which, one suspects, will become of more interest to more people as we get further into trade deal negotiations as part of the Brexit process. Volume 3, on financial services, may be of particular interest to those working in that sector, but the section that caught my eye was in Volume 2, on movable property:
“the [Draft Common Frame of Reference] is uncritically cast in the traditional civil law codification mould, built on formal legislative texts, and is as such top down, statist, prescriptive, static and positivist. This law has technique and logic at its heart, supposed to issue from a coherent text that is deemed to be a comprehensive reflection of reality and capable, if properly interpreted, of producing all answers. Other sources of law are not considered or accepted as valid and there is no decentralisation in that sense. In this approach, even fundamental principle or deeper values only operate by statist fiat. “
- The Company Law Handbook received an online only update, for subscribers to Company and Commercial. One of the interesting cases covered in this release was Fox-Davies v Burberry Group PLC:
“In Fox-Davies v Burberry Group PLC  EWCA Civ 1129, the defendant, who ran a tracing agency, requested a copy of the register of members of the claimant company (Burberry) for the purpose of assisting shareholders who might be unaware of their entitlements to reassert ownership or recover the benefit of their property. The defendant was not a member of Burberry. Burberry refused the request and applied for relief, under CA 2006, s 117(3). The Court of Appeal held, among other things, that the request was for an improper purpose. Accordingly, it directed Burberry not to comply with the request. It held that the test of whether a purpose was improper was an objective one. The company must form its own view about the propriety of the requester’s purpose if it is to decide under CA 2006, s 117(1) to refuse a request, but on the ensuing application to the court, it was for the court to reach its own view. The court’s decision did not depend on the company’s subjective view nor was the court reviewing the company’s decision, Further, the test as to whether a purpose was “proper” did not depend on whether it was in the interests of shareholders,”
PRECEDENT OF THE MONTH: we like to draw attention to some of the precedent materials on Bloomsbury Professional Law Online which users might have overlooked and this month we have highlighted the precedents contained in our E-Contracts title, part of the IT/IP Law service, which look at a website design agreement both from the designer’s perspective, and from the client’s perspective.
Website Development Agreement – Designer Perspective:
Website Development Agreement – Client Perspective