NetLawman Blog for legal documents, drafting and legal advice

Contract for service

admin — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:24:12 +0000

Contract for service means contract for a job by self employed person. While he or she may hire others to carry out (or help) in the work, he or she is solely responsible for the satisfactory completion of the job.

Contract for service governs and regulates the relationship between contractor and client. There is no statutory definition of contract for service .In order to determine the nature of contract for service, it is necessary to apply the common law principles.

Contract for service is also called self employment and it is based on the business to business contract between buyer and supplier. Contract for services come to end when the job/task is completed. Contract for service can also come to end if the terms of the contract are breached. The main elements of a valid contract for services (self-employment) are:

• the intention to enter into legal relations
• an offer (usually of work) and its acceptance (an agreement)
• Consideration (for example, in return for performing work the worker receives payment).

There is a line of demarcation between contract of service and contract for service. The main difference between contract of service and contract for service is that

• An employer –employee contract is called contract of service.
• A contractor – client contract is called contract for service.

In a contract for service, there is no question of any employment involved because contract for service does not grant any employment rights and it does not constitute any relation of employment. In contract for services the contractor is considered the owner of the business and he can hire anyone to complete the task.

In contract for service the contractor is sole responsible for the satisfactory completion of the job. A contract for service is an agreement between a self-employed contractor and end user to carry out a particular job or provide a service. Contract for services imposes some duties on client and contractor such as

• It is the duty of the contractor to provide services to the client as stated in contract
• It is the duty of the contractor to complete the project as stated in contract
• It is the duty of the contractor to provide such standard of services to the client as stated in contract
• It is the duty of the client to pay the contractor as stated in contract
• It is the duty of the client to provide the safe working environment to the contractor

Related source: Click here to obtain contract for service

Stock Transfer Form

admin — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:37:11 +0000

Stock transfer form is used to make a private transfer of shares between two parties. In order to validly transfer its shares in the company, the shareholder needed to execute a stock transfer form

The stock transfer form is one of the essential documents used following incorporation of a company. The Stock Transfer Form allows you transfer the legal ownership of company shares to other party. It is appropriate for use when transferring the ownership of shares issued by a company registered in England and Wales or Scotland and contains the following elements:
• consideration
• company details
• share type and value
• current shareholders
• new shareholders
• Stamp duty declaration.

Transfers that attract stamp duty not exceeding £5 (whether fixed or ad valorem) are exempt from stamp duty.

http://www.netlawman.co.uk

Section 8 notice

admin — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:28:23 +0000

Section 8 notice of the Housing Act 1988 is used to terminate the assured shorthold tenancy when the tenant violates the terms laid down in the tenancy agreement. There are 17 grounds on the basis of which landlord may seek possession before the fixed term of tenancy has come to an end.

Before applying for the order of the court with reference to eviction of the tenant, the landlord must serve the section 8 to evict on the tenant. The notice must provide the ground/s on the basis of which landlord wishes to obtain the possession.

The Housing Act 1988 defines 17 grounds that the landlord may use to recover possession. These grounds are laid down in Schedule 2 of the Act. It is important when using the section 8 you understand the different grounds. The grounds are simply the reason for your wanting possession. The first 8 grounds are ‘mandatory’. This means that if you can show that one of these grounds applies, the court must give possession. The remaining grounds are ‘discretionary’. This means that the court will not necessarily give possession, but will look at the whole situation and only then give a judgement.

The most common grounds are for rent arrears which are covered in three grounds, 8, 10, and 11. Usually, it is best to choose all three, if the tenant is in sufficient arrears to choose ground 8, (being mandatory). Be sure to read the grounds carefully and decide which ones you wish to include in your notice.

When claiming possession it is often a good idea to cite more than one ground in your claim. For example, ground 8 is a mandatory ground and thus the most powerful ground to use. The court must grant possession if this ground is proved. However, the drawback with relying on this ground alone is that the tenant can pay off part of the arrears shortly before the hearing, which means the ground can no longer be proved and thus the possession proceedings will have to be abandoned.

http://www.netlawman.co.uk/

UK to fast-track international patent applications

admin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:12:49 +0000

A new fast-track procedure for approving international patent applications that will cut waiting times by more than a year has been launched.

Innovation is one of the main driving forces for Britain’s economic recovery. Delays in dealing with patent applications prevent firms from expanding and creating new jobs

The new fast-track procedure will make it quicker for business to turn innovation and ideas into products and jobs

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) introduced the scheme to help tackle the worldwide backlog of patent applications, which costs the global economy an estimated £7.6 billion a year. The UK is among the first to introduce such a fast-track scheme.

The Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010 – in force 6.4.10

admin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:26:53 +0000

Statutory Instrument – 22/01/2010

The main effect of these draft regulations is to implement the government’s previously announced intention to give new mothers the right to transfer the second 6 months of their 12 months maternity leave entitlement to the father.

Statutory Maternity Pay (£123.06 per week, rising to £124.88 in April 2010, payable for 9 months in total) will effectively continue even if part of the 9 months relates to this “transferred” leave. Under current law men are entitled to two weeks paid paternity leave.

Although the regulations will come into effect on 6th April 2010 the provisions noted above and below will have effect only in relation to children whose expected week of birth begins on or after 3rd April 2011. However back up provisions (for example a new right not to suffer a detriment by reason of exercising the basic rights noted here and a related extension of the automatically unfair dismissal provisions in ERA 1996 s.99) apply from 6th April 2010.

The Work and Families Act 2006 introduces a new entitlement for employees who are fathers or partners of mothers or adopters to take additional paternity leave in the first year of their child’s life or the first year after the child’s placement for adoption. These draft regulations will confer the right to take additional paternity leave, following the birth of a child, to fathers or spouses and partners (of either sex) of the child’s mother. In the case of adoption, the entitlement is granted to persons who have been matched with the child for adoption and who are spouses or partners (of either sex) of the adopter who has elected to take adoption leave (defined as “the adopter” for the purpose of these Regulations).

Read our forthcoming newsletter for more.
http://www.netlawman.co.uk

Lyons v Mitie Security Ltd – employer wins annual holiday “use it or lose it” case

admin — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:35:29 +0000

EAT – 18/01/2010

The right to statutory leave is not “inalienable”. Although an employer must not act unreasonably or capriciously so as to deny any lawful requests for leave, it is possible that contractual provisions (such as notice periods for applying for leave) may operate to prevent an employee taking all his leave before a leave year expires.

http://www.netlawman.co.uk

Catholic ban on women priests ‘illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill’

admin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:07:04 +0000

Sunday Telegraph – 10/01/2010
The Sunday Telegraph reports that John Bowers QC, the eminent employment law silk, has said in a formal opinion that the Equality Bill “could make it unlawful for a church to require a priest or minister to be male, celibate and unmarried, or not in a civil partnership”.
The Sunday Telegraph article goes on to say that the government is to propose an amendment to make sure that this is not the case. It reports Michael Foster, a government minister, as saying:
“The Equality Bill will still allow churches to hire only male clergy and will let faith-based charities continue to recruit people of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job, such as care staff who may also be asked to pray with the people they look after. We have been absolutely clear on this throughout the Bill’s passage, but as there has been some misunderstanding around our intentions we will amend the Bill to make this clear beyond doubt.”
Hopefully this will prove to be the only part of the Bill where the drafting has failed to make clear what the legislature intends.

Employees could keep a job into their 70s and 80s under Harriet Harman’s plan to scrap forced retirement

admin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:05:27 +0000

Copyright acknowledged Daily Mail – 11/01/2010
Although this Daily Mail article does not mention it, the Heyday case is an essential backdrop to this interview with Harriet Harman. Ms Harman has told the Daily Mail that the government intends to recommend that the age 65 default retirement age should not be raised to 70 or 75 but rather should be scrapped altogether. A planned review is to be announced shortly.
Under current law (the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1031 reg 30), an employee can be required to retire at age 65. In the Heyday case, Age Concern argued that this was unlawful under EU law (the Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC). Age Concern lost. In a High Court judgment on 25th September 2009, the British government won its argument that the provision was lawful as a “proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim” .
The government’s position was always equivocal. It seems likely that the desire to avoid having a costs order made against it may have played a significant part in both the tactics and the substantive arguments used by the Government. The case brought by Age Concern was enormously expensive.
As to tactics, the government announced just three days before the High Court hearing that it planned to bring forward to 2010 consideration of the desirability of retaining the age 65 default retirement provision of Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1031 reg 30. This had previously been planned for 2011. The judge in the case explained that this last minute change of stance by the government had influenced his deciding in favour of the government.
As to substance, the government did not argue in the High Court that the default retirement age was desirable, merely that it was justifiable. While this is a real distinction, it is one which Age Concern, saddled with the huge costs of the case following the result, might think inappropriate for a lawmaking government to have relied on.

CIBC banker fired at 42 wins age claim

admin — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:59:00 +0000

Financial Times – 28/12/2009

A highly paid London-based German banker, Achim Beck, has successfully brought a claim for age discrimination against his former employer, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, after he was made redundant.

An employment tribunal ruled that Mr Beck had been the victim of a “sham” redundancy process with the aim of replacing him with someone younger. Although he had been made redundant along with several members of his derivatives marketing team, the bank had already drafted a plan to rebuild the business with new hires and was in the process of consulting head hunters. An internal memo revealed that part of the plan was to find a new head of derivatives marketing with a “younger, entrepreneurial profile.”

Compensation for the age discrimination is to be assessed at a later date.

The case is of some general significance, especially in relation to disclosure of documents. Mr Beck won an order from the Court of Appeal in June 2009 requiring the Bank to disclose documents which it had sought to keep confidential.

A further claim of race discrimination made by Mr Beck (on the basis that the Bank favoured Canadians) was dismissed by the tribunal. This is somewhat redolent of the 2007 claim made against the Dresdner Kleinwort Bank by an Australian banker, Malcolm Perry, who alleged that he was forced out of his job because (ironically) he was not German or German speaking. Like Mr Beck, Mr Perry also lost his race discrimination claim.

http://www.netlawman.co.uk

Harman questioned on EHRC chief executive £1,000 per day salary

admin — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:25:13 +0000

Joint Committee on Human Rights – 15/12/2009

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been examining the Process for appointments to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As part of that process it has been asking why the Commission is paying Neil Kingham, its interim chief executive, £1,000 per day.

This follows previous evidence sessions with the Chair of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips OBE, and with former EHRC Commissioners, Professor Kay Hampton, Professor Francesca Klug OBE, Sir Bert Massie and Ben Summerskill OBE.

The committee was told on 15th December that since the former chief executive Nicola Brewer (salary – £185,000 pa) left the EHRC in May there had been a “process to recruit her replacement”. However “issues over salaries are delaying an appointment”. The process has now been suspended, more than six months after the position became vacant, until a decision is made about how much to pay. Harriet Harman told the committee that “The likely scenario is a new chief executive on considerably lower pay than the old one”.

Ms Harman was also challenged about her decision to re-appoint Trevor Phillips as EHRC chair. Lord Morris wanted to know why the position was not opened up to competition. Apparently Harman’s reply was “My approach was whether Trevor had the right qualities to lead a big and important organisation.”

Jonathan Rees, director-general of the Government Equalities Office, told the committee that Trevor Phillips was reappointed in September 2009 for three years and cannot be re-appointed a third time. Mr Phillips is paid £115,000 for 3 1/2 days a week.

http://www.netlawman.co.uk