Intellectual property, and especially patents, is a key driver for innovation which, in turn, encourages growth, and it improves economic and social conditions for the people of the world.

Patent knockers will disagree. But most economists agree that without strong patents then expensive and innovative research from which new product and services develop will not be done. Would you invest in the cost of clearing a field for crops if you were not confident that property law made sure you took the benefit of a successful crop? Most of us would not, yet when it comes to patents many people have a different view.

So read more here about this celebration of innovation and try posting your own story of innovation - http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/2012/. 

If we want wealth - we need innovation.  To have innovation, we need people motivated to innovate and intellectual property rights to secure the rewards for the investment - time as well as money.  Often derided in the media, intellectual property is important. No farmer would invest time and money to clear and plough a field if any passer by could take the crop once it had grown.

Every building contract has a number of key features.  The essentials are:

1.           The identities of the customer and the builder;

2.           A description of the work;

3.           The timescale for carrying out the work;

4.           What the work is going to cost;

5.           When the work is to be paid for;

6.           Who will give instructions and approvals: for example will an architect or quantity surveyor be involved?

A detailed building contract can include other provisions such as the need for compliance with statutory requirements, access arrangements., but the above six criteria are the critical ones.  The law will usually imply the work is to be done to a satisfactory quality and that the contractor has to comply with modern building standards.  When arguments do arise, they focus on three areas: time overruns, cost overruns and poor workmanship.  A good architect or surveyor will generally spot poor workmanship.  Arguments about additional cost and time occur when there is uncertainty over “extras” which attract further payments or if a change to the work or unforeseen difficulty merits more time having been spent on the project. 

This is where a good specification comes in.  It astonishes me when clients ask for a legal contract to be drawn up but will not spend any money on an architect doing detailed plans and a detailed specification.  A quantity surveyor will also cost out each item within the specification.  Perhaps I am doing myself a disservice, but I always tell clients to concentrate their cash spend on a good architect and a good quantity surveyor.  If it comes to an argument between an owner and a builder, you stand more chance of success with a properly detailed and costed specification and no written contract than if you have the best contract drawn up by the best lawyers with a poor specification and no plans attached.  Imagine you are the judge in court: how do you work out what the parties agreed to be done, if there is no list of works and what they were going to cost?  The judge is not stupid – he knows that one person asked another to do some work and he knows that if the latter was to be paid then it is implied the work was going to be of a certain standard – that is pure common sense if nothing else – but without a decent specification and costing he really is having to apply guesswork.  So before you get a lawyer get yourself a good architect and quantity surveyor, and when you appoint them, make it clear what you want them to do.

Please let us know if you have been in a similar situation or, if you require legal advice with regard to building work, please contact Russell Davidson on 0113 2802138 or via e-mail russell.davidson@luptonfawcett.com

Rachel, one of the region’s leading child and family experts, who also sits as a Deputy District Judge, is a highly experienced family and child care lawyer with over 25 years of experience   Rachel also chairs the training local sub committee of the Local Family Justice Council.

Rachel joined Lupton Fawcett in 2010 to set up a specialist department, Absolute Family, serving clients in the South Yorkshire area who require legal advice and representation, for those that qualify, through the legal aid route as well as dealing with privately funded matters.

Commenting on her appointment, Richard Marshall, Managing Director, says: “Rachel is a fearless litigator in her chosen field.  The children and families that Rachel represents are comforted by the fact that she is on their side and looking after their interests.  In recognition of Rachel’s hard work, dedication and an exemplary leader of her team, we are delighted to be able to reward her achievements by promoting her to Director.”

Rachel Roebuck comments:  “This is wonderful accolade to me since joining the firm and launching Absolute Family.  This appointment will now provide new challenges for me as well as allowing me to develop the department.”

The table at the bottom of this article summarises the main tax benefits available to EIS and SEIS investors.

Seed EIS Relief

This is so generous that even if an investment is written off, a taxpayer who is able to take full advantage of all the potential tax reliefs will be marginally better off as a result of the investment.  In fact, the available relief would equal approximately 103% of the investment.

However, it is also considerably more limited than normal EIS.  Companies will only qualify for SEIS investment if they have fewer than 25 full time employees and gross assets of no more than £200,000.  Also, the overall limit for SEIS investments (per company) is only £150,000.

EIS Relief

The headline restrictions on EIS investments are now considerably more generous than they were thanks to changes which took affect for shares issued on or after6 April 2012:

• The limit on the number of employees has been increased to <250 full time employees (previously <50).
• Companies with gross assets not exceeding £15 million now qualify (£16 million post-investment).  Previously this was £7 million (£8 million post-investment).
• The limit on total EIS investments in any particular tax year has increased from £2 million to £5 million.

The Devil in the Detail

The chief obstacle to all EIS investors, however, is complexity. 

Bearing in mind the generosity of the tax breaks, it is understandable that the Government wishes to impose strict limits on what qualifies.  Unfortunately, though, this means investors relying on EIS relief can often be disappointed, sometimes on seemingly arbitrary grounds.

Underneath some of the headline limits summarised above, lie more obscure restrictions.  These cover matters such as how and when the funds are used, the relationship between the particular investor and the company, the business activities of the company and receipt of value from the company. 

Investors can gain some comfort from the requirement that the company applies to HMRC for permission to issue a certificate to investors wishing to claim EIS relief but this is limited to the status of the company at that time plus the investor has no guarantee that HMRC is aware of all material facts about the company.

Anyone relying on EIS relief without professional advice does so at his or her peril.

EIS and SEIS: Key Tax Benefits

This summary assumes that the changes included in the Finance Bill (No. 4) are enacted in their current form.

As always, Lupton Fawcett LLP are on hand to offer advice so please contact Michael Hunter on 0113 2802071, via e-mail michael.hunter@luptonfawcett.com or please write a comment below.

 Last year, the Employment Appeal Tribunal listed the following points to be taken into account when deciding whether or not a belief is “philosophical”:

• the belief must be genuinely held
• it must be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
• it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

 Clear as mud?  Great, so would you class the following beliefs as philosophical?

• a belief in climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions
• a belief in the sanctity of life, including anti-fox hunting
• membership of the BNP
• spiritualism
• patriotism – in particular, an employee’s desire to sew the stars and stripes onto his work uniform
• a belief that the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were “false flag operations” authorised by the US and UKgovernments
• Marxist and Trotskyist beliefs

 Post your answers here – but would you believe that these issues have all been considered by the Employment Tribunal?

 He was called to a disciplinary hearing for breach of the company’s social media policy.  The dispute lead him to resign and bring a claim for constructive dismissal.

 The case raises a number of interesting questions about the overlap between business networking sites and the employment relationship.  In this case, the employer did have a social media policy setting out rules for the use of LinkedIn, which included a prohibition on employees indicating that they were “interested in career opportunities”.  But should employers be interfering in their staff’s use of social media sites?  Does the imposition of rules go against the ethos of freely sharing information and building up trusted networks of contacts? Is it ever possible to anticipate every perceived misuse of LinkedIn and cover it in a policy?  What about employees who set up their LinkedIn pages privately and not in work time?

 The case was adjourned in January and we won’t know how the Tribunal will approach these vexed questions until later in the year.  So whilst we are awaiting the judge’s view - let us know what you think!

Of themselves, the changes appear to be fairly technical.  For example, witness statements are to be taken as read, unless the judge orders otherwise.  Lawyer-speak or substantive change?  In fact, this could be quite an important development for employers.  It means that the Tribunal will read the witness statements at the beginning of the hearing, and then witnesses will simply be called in to be cross-examined.  This could halve the time that the witnesses spend in Tribunal, with a consequent reduction in the overall cost of the hearing.  This means that employees giving evidence can be released from the Tribunal hearing earlier and go back to work; that the hearings will be shorter, taking up less of the employer’s time; and that those lawyers charging “on the clock” will charge lower fees to their clients. 

Other changes are geared towards upping the stakes for individuals with weak claims.  For example, a Tribunal will be able to make a Claimant pay up to £1,000 as a deposit before being allowed to bring a claim that the Tribunal thinks is likely to fail – this doubles the previous figure of £500.  Similarly, a Claimant who pushes an unmeritorious claim right through to a hearing could now be faced with paying legal costs to the employer of up to £20,000 – again, this has doubled from the previous figure of £10,000.  Future plans to charge individuals who wish to bring Tribunal claims follow this theme of discouraging those who are simply “trying it on”.

Finally, new legislation will ditch the Tribunal wing members in some cases, in particular unfair dismissal claims.  Wing members are effectively an industrial jury, meaning that one person with a trade union background and one person with a business background will sit alongside the Tribunal judge to decide the case.  Most Tribunal users are fans of the industrial jury, as it instils some practicality and common sense into a lot of Tribunal hearings.  However, having three people rather than one on a Tribunal panel increases the costs, and also introduces delays, particularly where a case has been adjourned part-way through, and the diaries of three panel members have to be consulted before a new hearing date can be set.

So what do readers think?  If you’re an employer – do you really care?  If you’re an HR Manager with experience of Tribunals – can you see this approach speeding things up and reducing claims?  Let’s debate it!

Intellectual property and especially patents is a key driver for innovation and so growth and so improving economic and social conditions for the people of the world. Patent knockers will disagree. But most economists agree that without strong patents then expensive and innovative research from which new product and services develop will not be done. Would you invest in the cost of clearing a field for crops if you were not confident that property law made sure you took the benefit of a successful crop? Most of us would not, yet when it comes to patents many people have a different view.

So read more here about this celebration of innovation and try posting your own story of innovation - http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/2012/ .

Lupton Fawcett, the Leeds and Sheffield based commercial law firm, has promoted Daniel Lumb to the position of Director, just 7 years after he qualified as a solicitor with the firm.

A specialist in tax and estate planning, wills, trusts and probate and a recently appointed professional Deputy to the Court of Protection's new Panel, Daniel joined Lupton Fawcett in 2003 as a trainee solicitor.

Daniel was promoted to Associate in 2010 after re-joining the firm following a couple of years elsewhere.

Richard Marshall, Managing Director, comments:  “To progress so rapidly is testament to the hard work and dedication Daniel has shown for the benefit of the firm.  Daniel’s appointment shows the continued commitment the firm has to providing well rounded advice not only to our commercial clients but also to individuals.

Daniel becomes one of five directors at Lupton Fawcett who specialise in managing the personal legal and financial needs of its clients.

The Diploma, delivered in association with Manchester Business School, is recognised within the industry as the benchmark qualification for those working in the field of trusts and estates.  It is awarded to candidates on successfully completing four examinations in trust and estate administration, taxation and accounts. Full STEP membership provides a hallmark of quality for practitioners in this field and will allow Erika to use the designation ‘TEP’ after her name.

Erika joined Lupton Fawcett in 2010, having taken a career break from practising, for many years inLondon, as an in-house Solicitor. She joined the firm’s Trusts, Wills and Estates department, with a view to pursuing her career in the private client field.

Richard Marshall, Managing Director comments: “The award of a diploma, and with distinction, is a great achievement and I am very proud of Erika’s determination and success.”

Erika comments: “The STEP Diploma has provided me with the opportunity to retrain into an area of law which has always interested me. It has enabled me to gain a strong knowledge base upon which to advise and work with the firm’s clients and ultimately to move towards being recognised as an expert within this field.”