How long does a claim take?
There is no hard and fast rule as to how long a claim under the 1975 Act can take. If a dispute is settled early into the process then resolution can be reached in a matter of weeks or months. If, on the other hand, matters have to proceed all the way to trial then it is not unheard of for disputes under the 1975 Act to last anywhere between 12-18 months
Related FAQs
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England Regulations) 2020 were laid before Parliament and come into force on 1 September 2020. They apply in England only.
The changes include the revocation of the following Use Classes;
- A1 – shops
- A2 – financial and professional services
- A3 – restaurants and cafes
- A4 – drinking establishments
- A5 – hot food takeaways
- B1 – business. Also revoked are the sub parts of B1;
- B1(a) – offices
- B1(b) – research and development of products and processes
- B1(c ) – industrial process
- D1 – non residential institutions
- D2 – assembly and leisure
The changes include the amendment of the following Use Class;
- B2 (industry)
The changes include the introduction of the following Use Classes;
- E – commercial, business and service
- F.1 – learning and non-residential institutions
- F.2 – Local community
There are no changes to the following Use Classes;
- C1 – hotels, boarding and guest houses
- C2 – residential institutions
- C3 – dwellinghouses
- C4 – small HMO
From 1 September 2020;
- Small retail shops (not more than 280 sq metres net sales area) selling essential goods including food and at least 1 kilometre from another shop will cease being an A1 use and will become a F.2 (local community) use;
- Other A1 shops will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- A2 uses will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- A3 uses will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- A4 uses will not be in a Use Class, they will be sui generis, ie not in any use class;
- A5 uses will not be in a Use Class, they will be sui generis, ie not in any use class;
- B1 uses (included B1(a), B1 (b) and B1 (c) will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- B2 uses will either be B2 uses or will be Class E uses.
- Clinics, health centres, creches, day nurseries and day centres (previously D1 uses) will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- Schools, non residential education and training centres, museums, public libraries, public halls, exhibition halls, places of worship, law courts (previously D1 uses) will become an F.1 ( learning and non-residential institutions) use;
- Cinemas, concert halls, live music performance venues, bingo halls and dance halls (previously D2 uses) and will be sui generis, ie not in any use class;
- Gyms, indoor sport, recreation or fitness not involving motorised vehicles or firearms principally to visiting members of the public (previously D2 uses) will become an E (commercial, business and service) use;
- Hall or meeting place for the principal use of the local community (previously D2 uses) will become an F.2 (local community) use;
- Indoor or outdoor swimming baths, skating rinks, outdoor sports or recreation grounds (not involving motorised vehicles or firearms) (previously D2 uses) will become an F.2 (local community) use.
Changes of use within a Use Class do not constitute development. That being the case, provided the Order is applicable, its operation not having been restricted by planning condition, Agreement or Article 4 (1) Direction for example, planning permission would not be required, development as defined not happening. If legally binding confirmation is required that planning permission is not required this can only be obtained by way of a successful application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. In the absence of such, there is some risk.
It remains the case that planning permission may be required for operational works to buildings. It also remains the case that other consents and permissions may be necessary for example licenses. Furthermore amendments to leases may be required if the property is rented.
The Regulations additionally include transitional arrangements because of permitted development rights for changes of use in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order amongst others. To respond to this Regulations introduce a ‘material period’ which is defined as meaning the period beginning 1 September 2020 and ending 31 July 2021. It is expected during the material period the Orders giving permitted development rights for changes for use which do constitute development will be amended / updated to reflect the new use classes.
Click here to view the Regulations.
The above is based on our understanding of the new Regulations at the time of issue and in advance of planning practice guidance being issued.
Dogs and other pets are often seen as a much loved member of the family but sadly when it comes to divorce, in the eyes of the law a pet falls into the same category as a TV or a toaster as nothing more than a person’s personal property. As such the court is likely to be more interested in who owns the dog by considering factors such as:
- who paid for the dog (ideally backed up with receipts)
- who is registered at the vet
- who is listed on the microchip database, and
- who is the provider of key supplies and food
This person is more likely to have a successful claim over the dog, even if the other party has a better emotional attachment and spent more time looking after the dog.
If it is unclear who owns the dog, a sympathetic judge may consider who is best placed to look after the dog but parties should be prepared for a fairly rough and ready decision. The court is often reluctant to deal with disputes such as pet ownership as it is more concerned with the bigger picture such as arrangements for the children and the overall financial division. It is therefore far preferable for the parties to reach an agreement themselves, perhaps with the assistance of mediation.
Read our recent article to find out more.
With the outbreak of coronavirus leading to a requirement for more employees to be working remotely, especially following Government advice that all non-essential travel including to and from work should be avoided, there has been an increased requirement for businesses to be more flexible in their approach to signing contracts.
The traditional approach has been for contracts to be printed and signed with a “wet ink” signature. However, this is not a strict legal requirement in the majority of circumstances and contracts can be formed without this degree of formality. English law recognises that contracts can be formed by electronic means – including the exchange of emails or the typing of a name into a document to signify agreement to it.
Whilst this approach offers a lot of flexibility, more sophisticated electronic signature tools are recommended for important documents, to enable the identity of the signatory to be validated and reduce the possibility of fraud.
If businesses are considering changing their contracting processes because of coronavirus, or because of a general shift towards paperless working, it is important to ensure that proper approval processes remain in place, and to consider whether a software tool should be used to complement them. Systems such as DocuSign are widely used.
There also remain some situations where legal advice is recommended before relying on an electronic signature:
- Where the other party is abroad – as local laws that are different from English law might apply
- If executing a deed – the law requires certain types of document to be executed as a deed (for example, transfers of land and powers of attorney), and the issues around electronic signature and witnessing are more complicated here
This will depend on the particular facts and the employee’s circumstances but an employee should co-operate with the employer so far as is necessary to enable compliance with any statutory duty or requirement relating to health and safety.
In addition, conduct outside of work can result in an employee’s dismissal if the conduct pertains to the employment relationship. If an employee breaches the lockdown rules and it affects their ability to work, such as it being no longer safe for them to attend work, or the reputation of the employer, these may be grounds for disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.
An employer has a duty of care to its workforce and must take reasonable precautions to protect the health and safety of employees. Employers also have a duty of care towards anyone entering or using their place of business, such as visiting clients or customers.
This means that if an employer reasonably believes that wearing face masks at work is appropriate and necessary, it can issue an instruction to employees to this effect and employees should abide by this as far as possible.
However employers should be cautious about introducing and enforcing a policy across its business which requires its staff to wear face masks as there is the risk of unlawfully discriminating against people who are exempt from wearing face coverings or have legitimate reasons for not doing so. An employer should also consider the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and discuss any concerns raised by employees who do not want to or feel unable to wear a mask.