The NUIG Law Society is in the process of establishing a FLAC on campus at NUI Galway, in association with the National Free Legal Advice Centres. This body is an independent human rights organisation dedicated to the realisation of equal access to justice for all. It campaigns on a range of legal issues and offers some basic legal services to the public.
The NUI Galway FLAC will run on a weekly basis and will primarily cater for students. Any student requiring advice on a legal matter will be able to avail of advice from trained student volunteers who will work under the supervision of a qualified practitioner. It is also hoped that FLAC will run periodical campaigns on campus with a view to promoting access to justice. It is anticipated to extend the FLAC clinics to the general public in due course.
More details of the time and location of the FLAC clinics will be available in September 2009. If any qualified practitioners would be interested in volunteering their services, please contact Aisling Dillon, Auditor of NUIG Law Society.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
McCurry versus the might of McDonalds
Proving that sometimes David can beat Goliath, a Malaysian curry restaurant, McCurry, has beaten McDonalds in a dispute over a trademark.
McCurry Restaurant of Ipoh Road, Kuala Lumpur had the stomach to take on the American fast food giants in an 8 year battle over the right to use “Mc” in their name. In a ruling given this week, the Malaysian Federal Court rejected McDonalds appeal against a2006 ruling allowing McCurry to keep its “Mc”. McCurry serves a mixture of Malaysian and South Indian dishes such as tandoori meats, naan breads and, of course, curries (including their famous fish head curry dish), all slightly different from the ordinary McDonalds fair of burgers and chips. Nevertheless, McDonalds considered that its customers might be confused by the similarities of their names.
The Malaysian Federal Court disagreed. Judge Gopal Sri Rampril said “McCurry and McDonalds are two different businesses which sell different types of food and they have different customers,” and continued, “The defendant’s signboard carried the lettering in white and grey on a red background, with a picture of a chicken giving a double thumbs-up and with the wording ‘Malaysian Chicken Curry’. The defendant’s presentation of its business is in a style and get-up which is distinctly different from that of the plaintiff.”
McDonalds lawyers said that they were accepting the judgment, which must have been a most appealing one for McCurry!
McCurry Restaurant of Ipoh Road, Kuala Lumpur had the stomach to take on the American fast food giants in an 8 year battle over the right to use “Mc” in their name. In a ruling given this week, the Malaysian Federal Court rejected McDonalds appeal against a2006 ruling allowing McCurry to keep its “Mc”. McCurry serves a mixture of Malaysian and South Indian dishes such as tandoori meats, naan breads and, of course, curries (including their famous fish head curry dish), all slightly different from the ordinary McDonalds fair of burgers and chips. Nevertheless, McDonalds considered that its customers might be confused by the similarities of their names.
The Malaysian Federal Court disagreed. Judge Gopal Sri Rampril said “McCurry and McDonalds are two different businesses which sell different types of food and they have different customers,” and continued, “The defendant’s signboard carried the lettering in white and grey on a red background, with a picture of a chicken giving a double thumbs-up and with the wording ‘Malaysian Chicken Curry’. The defendant’s presentation of its business is in a style and get-up which is distinctly different from that of the plaintiff.”
McDonalds lawyers said that they were accepting the judgment, which must have been a most appealing one for McCurry!
The picture above is from the BBC, and for their take on the story, click HERE
Of course, this isn't the first time McDonalds have been involved in a high profile legal case. You might remember Ms. Stella Liebeck , who was awarded $2.86million when she burned herself with hot coffee while driving with it in her lap. If you don't remember the unfortunate Ms. Liebeck, read wikipedia's entry HERE
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Companies (Amendment) Act 2009
The Companies (Amendment) Act 2009 was passed by the Houses of Oireachtas and signed into law by the President of Ireland on the 12th July 2009. The Act is a product of the recent economic crisis in Ireland and its initiation has been fuelled by the disclosures of large loans made by financial institutions to their directors and is an attempt to increase regulation in the financial and corporate sectors.
The main provisions include
· Increased powers of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement ;to investigate suspicions of breaches of the Companies Acts; power to access and seize documentation (regardless of any professional legal privilege claim); power to require production of information from third parties.
· Criminal Liability for Non Compliant Directors or Connected Persons. Section 40 of the Companies Act 1990 provided that an officer of a company who authorised a transaction knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the company was thereby contravening Section 31 was guilty of an offence. The 2009 Act removes this defence and may find every officer of a company in default guilty of an offence. A company’s annual accounts must disclose loans made by a company to its directors and to persons connected with them.
· Director’s Residency Requirements. The 2009 Act amends the requirement that at least one director of any Irish registered company is residing in the State. The new act requires that a director need only be resident in an EEA member state (member states of the European Union together with Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway).
The main provisions include
· Increased powers of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement ;to investigate suspicions of breaches of the Companies Acts; power to access and seize documentation (regardless of any professional legal privilege claim); power to require production of information from third parties.
· Criminal Liability for Non Compliant Directors or Connected Persons. Section 40 of the Companies Act 1990 provided that an officer of a company who authorised a transaction knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the company was thereby contravening Section 31 was guilty of an offence. The 2009 Act removes this defence and may find every officer of a company in default guilty of an offence. A company’s annual accounts must disclose loans made by a company to its directors and to persons connected with them.
· Director’s Residency Requirements. The 2009 Act amends the requirement that at least one director of any Irish registered company is residing in the State. The new act requires that a director need only be resident in an EEA member state (member states of the European Union together with Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway).
Friday, August 21, 2009
The New Defamation Act (2009)
The long awaited Defamation Bill (introduced in 2006) was signed into law by the President of Ireland on July 23 2009. It is understood that it will take effect in October.
The Defamation Act 2009 will replace the existing Defamation Act 1961 and will, most significantly, allow a judge sitting with a jury in a libel action to give directions to that jury in relation to the matter of damages. Commentators have heralded the new provisions as a solution to the uncertainty surrounding that issue of damages and the legislation will give a statutory basis to the principle that the parties may make submissions on the subject to the Court. However, whether the Irish Courts will permit counsel or Judges to go as far as to suggest figures to juries and make comparisons with other awards will depend on the Supreme Court and whether it is prepared to dilute the central role that the jury has traditionally enjoyed in the quantification of damages. The fact that the Bill does expressly permit the Supreme Court to substitute a figure for damages on appeal may go some way to resolving the problems associated with judge’s inability to give guidance to juries on appropriate amounts. Until now the Supreme Court has declined to substitute a figure, preferring to send the matter back for retrial.
The new legislation is in the interests of both the public and also the media because it enables newspapers to offer an apology without risking an admission of liability, and to defend libel actions by arguing that a story was in the public interest. Also welcome for media organisations is the reduction of the limitation period from 6 years to 1 year. Other key changes include the distinction between libel and slander being abolished and allowing the cause of action to survive death of the plaintiff.
The Defamation Act 2009 will replace the existing Defamation Act 1961 and will, most significantly, allow a judge sitting with a jury in a libel action to give directions to that jury in relation to the matter of damages. Commentators have heralded the new provisions as a solution to the uncertainty surrounding that issue of damages and the legislation will give a statutory basis to the principle that the parties may make submissions on the subject to the Court. However, whether the Irish Courts will permit counsel or Judges to go as far as to suggest figures to juries and make comparisons with other awards will depend on the Supreme Court and whether it is prepared to dilute the central role that the jury has traditionally enjoyed in the quantification of damages. The fact that the Bill does expressly permit the Supreme Court to substitute a figure for damages on appeal may go some way to resolving the problems associated with judge’s inability to give guidance to juries on appropriate amounts. Until now the Supreme Court has declined to substitute a figure, preferring to send the matter back for retrial.
The new legislation is in the interests of both the public and also the media because it enables newspapers to offer an apology without risking an admission of liability, and to defend libel actions by arguing that a story was in the public interest. Also welcome for media organisations is the reduction of the limitation period from 6 years to 1 year. Other key changes include the distinction between libel and slander being abolished and allowing the cause of action to survive death of the plaintiff.
Monday, July 13, 2009
How Do You Get the Money You're Owed?
In the current economic climate, life is tough for small businesses. It is more difficult to attract customers and clients, and, unfortunately, when the sale or service is completed, or the deal done, it is often difficult to get paid. It can sometimes look like a vicious circle, you don't get paid so you can't pay other people, who can't pay their people and so the cycle continues.
When it becomes impossible to bring in the money you have earned and are owed, the legal option is sometimes the only option. There are a number of options available to persons who are unable to get their hands on the money they are owed. Sometimes a letter does the trick, in other situations, a trip to court is the only answer. It is possible to ask the Court to order the debtor to pay the money in full straight away, or in a number of set instalments, weekly or monthly. Having a Court Order means that the creditor is entitled to the repayment of the money owed. If the debtor does not comply with the Court Order, there are other options for enforcement open to creditors, including asking the sheriff to seize property, or putting a claim on any land the debtor might own.
It is vital for small businesses that the goods or services they provide are paid for. When that doesn't happen, the law can help.
When it becomes impossible to bring in the money you have earned and are owed, the legal option is sometimes the only option. There are a number of options available to persons who are unable to get their hands on the money they are owed. Sometimes a letter does the trick, in other situations, a trip to court is the only answer. It is possible to ask the Court to order the debtor to pay the money in full straight away, or in a number of set instalments, weekly or monthly. Having a Court Order means that the creditor is entitled to the repayment of the money owed. If the debtor does not comply with the Court Order, there are other options for enforcement open to creditors, including asking the sheriff to seize property, or putting a claim on any land the debtor might own.
It is vital for small businesses that the goods or services they provide are paid for. When that doesn't happen, the law can help.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
e-Conveyancing
Conveyancing is the process of transferring property from one person to another. The process ensures that the title the buyer of the property gets from the seller is good title, and that the buyer won't be affected by any matters which can attach to property in relation to such things as planning permission, tax charges, spouses interests etc. The process which is used at the moment has evolved over hundreds of years and is, as a result, long-winded and cumbersome.
e-Conveyancing will, when it is introduced, make the process of selling houses quicker, more efficient, and ultimately cheaper for the client. There will no longer be a need for lengthy correspondence between solicitors, and all monies will transfer electronically. The Law Society consider that, should the money transfer go smoothly, the transaction, from start to finish, could take as little as five days.
The Law Society hope that e-conveyancing will be introduced, up and running within a few years.
e-Conveyancing will, when it is introduced, make the process of selling houses quicker, more efficient, and ultimately cheaper for the client. There will no longer be a need for lengthy correspondence between solicitors, and all monies will transfer electronically. The Law Society consider that, should the money transfer go smoothly, the transaction, from start to finish, could take as little as five days.
The Law Society hope that e-conveyancing will be introduced, up and running within a few years.
Friday, August 29, 2008
What is Collaborative Law?
Collaborative Law is a new way of resolving family law matters including Divorce, Separation and Parenting disputes whereby an agreement is reached between the couple involved, their lawyers, and any other professionals, without going to Court.
The first step is that each party meet with their respective lawyer, in order to identify and highlight their personal needs and concerns. The parties then make a full disclosure of their assets, and liabilities to each other. The next step is a series of meetings between the couple and their lawyers, sitting around a table, negotiating an agreement that can include issues relating to any children, finances and property, among others. Outside assistance can be sought at any stage in the shape of accountants, arbitrators or counsellors, and the process can be suspended in order that these professsionals can step in. Either party can choose to end the procedure at any stage, the lawyers involved step aside, and the parties can proceed to have their case heard in Court.
Collaborative law is a process that has rapidly become more popular in the last decade, and has the advantage, if the parties are willing to participate fully, of being more efficient than the traditional route.
The first step is that each party meet with their respective lawyer, in order to identify and highlight their personal needs and concerns. The parties then make a full disclosure of their assets, and liabilities to each other. The next step is a series of meetings between the couple and their lawyers, sitting around a table, negotiating an agreement that can include issues relating to any children, finances and property, among others. Outside assistance can be sought at any stage in the shape of accountants, arbitrators or counsellors, and the process can be suspended in order that these professsionals can step in. Either party can choose to end the procedure at any stage, the lawyers involved step aside, and the parties can proceed to have their case heard in Court.
Collaborative law is a process that has rapidly become more popular in the last decade, and has the advantage, if the parties are willing to participate fully, of being more efficient than the traditional route.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
