Archive for: January 2013

A Future Under the Jackson Reforms

Jan. 29 Legal no comments

On the 1st of April of this year, Lord Jackson’s reforms concerning the recovery of legal costs in civil litigation will come into place. These new laws are supposed to put an end to the excessive financial success fees (and ATE premiums) in the Personal Injury sector.

Consequently, the reforms will involve the policing of rigid costs budgeting by the judiciary. They will have further authorities to control legal costs by using fixed budgets to limit sums of money that can be recovered.

Third party funding will experience a rise due to these reforms. This is mainly because the new costs procedure puts civil litigation in a very attractive light and a powerful investment opportunity for funders.

Contingency fees will become permissible. This will allow lawyers who advise on commercial disputes to charge fees of up to 50%, (dependent on whether they win the case) of the damages that they recover.

However, could we be heading for disaster with these reforms? Last week, the chief of the LSLA (London Solicitors Litigation Association) described the lack of regulations and practice directions just 10 weeks before the introduction of the reforms as “wholly unacceptable” and predicts that civil litigation could descend into chaos. Ms Kaye added that if a set of draft rules had been issued and consulted six months ago “rather than the overwhelming and dark impenetrable silence we have experienced”, lawyers and consultants may not be dreading the introduction of the Jackson Reforms.

These reforms mean considerable change in the Personal Injury Compensation Claims industry, but as of yet their full impact is unknown. Only April will reveal their effects on PI claims, and the management of these changes will be eagerly and perhaps warily anticipated.

PM David Cameron Threatened by Starbucks

Jan. 28 Business, Economy no comments

The company of Starbucks that is based in Seattle, Washington who is known to be providing Britons their morning lattes and mochas has threatened Prime Minister David Cameron on issues regarding tax. Starbucks Coffee, known to be the largest coffeehouse chain in the world, that serves both hot and cold quality beverages and pastries have more than 20,000 branches around the world. The company first entered the United Kingdom in the year 1998 having a lot of chains in different cities.

The threat of the company was said to be suspending some of its investments in Britain due to a negative attack on matters of tax that was brought about by the Prime Minister and its government.

During the World Economic Forum 2013 in Davos, Switzerland the Prime Minister has released a statement that read, “Wake up and smell the coffee”, thus reported by telegraph that was referring to the company who has been avoiding their tax obligations. Kamal Ahmed, Business Editor of the telegraph.co.uk, on his article said that the statement of the Mr. Cameron was used to attack Starbucks in Britain for failing to pay the corporation tax.

In every country, no one can escape from paying taxes. Even individual citizen contributes taxes to the government for its general use in the country’s improvement. Most of the countries in the world really impose the so called corporate tax or company tax but on a case to case basis there are others who are exempted to pay such taxes. The issue on tax evasion is common already. Big corporations and establishments are often involved in this kind of situation.

PM David Cameron’s Marvelous Speech

Jan. 24 Political News no comments

Prime Minister David Cameron delivered his long-awaited speech last night on the relationship of UK with the European Union. He declared that Britain rejects “ever closer union.”He also cited EU regulations on employment, the environment, social affairs and crime as among ‘so many areas’ where he wanted to ‘examine whether the balance is right.

The Prime Minister pulled a seemingly impossible speech last night with his EU referendum pledge. It united Eurosceptic Tory, Britain’s business leaders, and won the support of Germany’s Angela Merkel. He gave a guarantee of an in/out vote on the membership if he is prime minister after 2015. He persuaded other EU leaders and Eurocrats to back his calls for reform against the strong opposition from the likes of Spain and Italy. His announcement left the Labor in chaos as Ed Miliband told MPs he did not want an in/out referendum, only for other senior figures to insist later that he might.

Mr. Cameron’s speech gained a positive feedback from prominent leaders including London Mayor Boris Johnson who said, “No doubt, the British people would vote for the kind of renegotiated membership the Prime Minister envisaged. What most sensible people want is to belong to the single market but to lop off the irritating excrescences of the European Union.”

A member state of the European Union is a state that is party to treaties of the European Union (EU) and thereby subject to the privileges and obligations of EU membership. Unlike the membership of an international organization, EU membership places each member under binding laws in exchange for representation in the EU’s legislative and judicial institutions. On the other hand, EU states retain considerable autonomy compared to the constituent states of a federation (such as a U.S. state), maintaining their national military and foreign policy ,where they have not agreed to European action in these areas.

Mr. Cameron, who was forced to postpone his speech, last week because of the Algeria hostage crisis, set out a hugely ambitious vision of a transformed EU.

Inflation and the Difference in Salary and Benefit Rises

Jan. 08 Economy no comments

A high rate of inflation is not good news for any economy. It means that in real terms the same £1 in your pocket will buy you less than it would have previously. Salaries often rise year on year taking a worker’s productiveness or years of loyalty into account, especially if there is steady inflation in the cost of living. However this is not the case in a recession, where many workers see their salaries capped at a low rate, frozen and for some even cut. Workers in the public sector have generally seen pay freezes although salary changes in the private sector vary greatly.

Official figures state that since 2007 there has been a rise of 12% in private sector pay. They also declare that at the same time the value of benefits for the unemployed have increased 20% comparatively. The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith claims these figures show unfairness towards working people, emphasising the government’s aim to make it ‘pay’ to work. These are the reasons behind the coalition led vote in Parliament to cap the rise in benefits (notably not a cap for disability or pensioner benefits) to just a 1% rise instead of being exactly in line with inflation – which is higher at 2.7% as of early January 2013.

Labour are against the proposal, criticising the cap as being unfair and unrealistic. They have offered their own statistics that state that for the past ten years benefits for the unemployed have not risen at the same level as wages have. Critics from charities have also spoken up at the potential rise in poverty and how it will affect the poorest in society the most.

The plans to cap the rise in out of work benefits at 1% are controversial. The vote will take place in Parliament today to determine if the cap will go ahead.