Douglas specialises in commercial property law and has practiced in Leicestershire throughout his career. In 1987 he helped set up Vaughan Wemyss with Bill Vaughan, before founding Douglas Wemyss, of Leicester, in the mid-1990s. He sold the business three years ago.

He has worked with Edward Hands and Lewis’s managing director Jason Hathaway in the past. Douglas says: “It will be good to work with Jason again and play a part in Edward Hands and Lewis’s further expansion.”

Originally from Loughborough, Douglas was educated at Loughborough Grammar School and read law at Hull University. He qualified as a solicitor in 1984. He now lives in Barrow-upon-Soar, and ran the London Marathon last year because he likes a challenge.

To contact Douglas, please call 01509 216161, or email on douglas.w@ehlsolicitors.co.uk.

Under the bill, drivers would be required to produce more medical evidence of their injuries and the fee paid to lawyers for low-value RTA claims would be slashed.  The bill is due to return to the Commons later this month.

MPs on the transport select committee said last month that the government should consider bringing in new laws to crack down on whiplash claims if the Jackson reforms failed to reduce them.

They said they were not convinced “that a diagnosis unsupported by any further evidence of injury or personal inconvenience arising from the injury should be sufficient for a claim to be settled”.

The MPs went on: “In our view, the bar to receiving compensation in whiplash cases should be raised.”

The select committee found that the number of RTA claims notified to the Compensation Recovery Unit had increased from 466,097 in 2005-06 to 790,999 in 2010-11.

However, it said the number of accident victims had gone down in the same period, from 258,404 in 2006 to 208,648 in 2010.

The late solicitor Steven Sugar requested in 2005 that the BBC disclose an internal report they held, to see if he was correct in his assertion that the BBC was biased against Israel in its reporting. He believed BBC’s former Middle East correspondent Orla Guernin, who had been accused of anti-Semitism by the Israeli government, showed bias. However, the BBC argued the report was held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’, and was therefore exempt from the Act

The Information Tribunal originally found in Mr Sugar’s favour, but this was overturned by the High Court. Mr Sugar’s widow, Fiona Paveley, continued to appeal the case until it today’s Supreme Court judgment. The Court held that, once it had been proved the report was held with some purpose for journalism, it is protected even if it also serves other purposes not exempt from the Act.

Croydon Council has been fined £100,000 after a bag of papers about a child sex abuse victim was stolen from a council worker’s unlocked bag in a London pub. Norfolk County Council meanwhile were fined £80,000 for accidentally sending a letter containing allegations of abuse against two parents to their neighbour’s address, rather than their own.

Head of Enforcement, Stephen Eckersley, said that the accidental nature of the breaches did not limit the councils’ responsibility. The councils were found either to have not completed the mandatory data protection training, or to have failed to ensure staff properly understood the protective procedures in place.

- Custom;
- Statute;
- Obligation; and
- Fact.

Implied by Statute

There are various statutes that imply terms into contracts, the most common example of this is the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). SOGA seeks to regulate the sale of goods for Business to Customer sales and Business to Business sales however, whist some section of SOGA can be expressly contracted out of in a Business to Business sale, SOGA does not permit the exclusion of its terms for Business to Customer sales.

Custom

Whilst often difficult to prove, the court may imply a term due to custom (Smith v Wilson (1832)). If you are entering into a contract with someone that you have traded with for a long time, or you are aware of a particular principle of trading in the location that you are operating the court may imply particular terms. We recommend that you should not rely on custom and that terms should be expressly stated in your contract. Conversely, if you are aware of instances where the court is willing to imply a particular term, make sure a clause is drafted into the contract that expressly excludes this custom.

Obligation

Under the terms of a contract, both parties are normally obliged to do certain things, this may be as simple as paying the consideration to the other side or burdensome as carrying out specific obligations such as repairs and maintenance to large properties.

If a contract is silent on who carries the burden on carrying out obligations that are required as a result of the contract the court will imply the appropriate term having looked at whole contract and what the contract is trying to achieve.

In Liverpool Count Council v Irwin [1977] the LCC rented a block of flats known as the Piggeries to various tenants. The contract was silent on who was responsible for the maintenance of the common areas; LCC argued that whilst it retained control of these areas it was not responsible for the upkeep of them. The court held in favour of the tenants and stated that LCC were under an obligation to maintain the common areas.

Fact

Business contracts require ‘business efficiency’ i.e. the contract needs to be able to work, if the contract lacks the terms that enable it to work then the court will imply appropriate terms to give it business efficiency.

The original case for this was that of the Moorcock (1889), whilst still a leading case on terms implied by fact for business efficiency, there are more up to date cases in the form of Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2000] UKHL 39.

Before entering into any contract, ensure that the same is reviewed by a solicitor as you my find that there are more terms that you are bound by.

The turbines, which between them generated enough electricity to satisfy the needs of approximately 1,500 homes (that’s an average of over seven million kw hours of electricity a year!) is on the market with Savills Energy.

Speaking about Moel Maelogan, Savills Energy’s Nick Green says that the site is “a rare text book example of a sensitively designed and profitable scheme” which will help the buyer contribute to “their green energy objectives”. Wind farms are often met with NIMBY opposition.

Mr Green continues: “Wind energy is currently one of the fastest growing of all the renewables, increasing at a rate of around 21% per annum globally. Such growth is being driven by a number of factors, including government policy and targets and improvements in turbine technology”.

It is the belief of Savills Energy that there could be widespread investment interest, despite developments such as Moel Maelogan usually only attracting interest from niche markets.

The remaining turbine at the site will remain in the ownership of Energiekontor UK Ltd.

In order to make a claim for breach of contract and satisfy the court that a breach of contract has occurred the claimant will need to establish 1) that a contract existed and 2) that the defendant breached the terms of that contract.

Below is a brief outline on the key elements to making a successful claim for breach of contract:

Establish if there is a contract

The first requirement is to establish that there is a contract between the two parties, it may seem obvious but if you cannot prove the existence of a contract you will not have a claim.

There are 5 key elements to a contract which are as follows:

Offer: “An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms” e.g. I (offeror) am offering to sell you my vintage R Reg Ford KA for £100,000.00 (it’s a classic).

Acceptance: This occurs when an offeree (in this case someone rather foolish) asserts his acceptance to purchase my mint condition Ford KA for £100,000.00. The offeree can accept an offer in a number of ways but the most common and simplest way is for the offeree to say ‘I accept your amazing offer to purchase your classic 1998 Ford KA’.

Consideration: All contracts require consideration (the benefit to the parties), the most common example is money e.g. the somewhat crazy offeree pays me £100,000.00 (paid directly in to my bank account as I am like the queen, I never carry cash). There are exceptions to this rule but they go beyond the scope of this example.

Intention: Both parties must intend to enter into a legally binding contract.

Capacity: Both parties must have capacity to enter into a contract, this requires the parties to be over the age of 18 and have mental capacity. You are forgiven for thinking that both parties in this example are short of one or two brain cells but lets for arguments sake accept the preposition that I am merely excentric in suggesting my Ford KA is a classic and that the offeree has more money than sence (but isn’t insane). Both parties are capable of making decisions for themselves and understand what is happening.

Having successfully established that a contract exists we can move on to assess if a breach of contract has occurred.

Breach of Contract

As stated a breach of contract will occur if one of the parties (or sometimes both if there is a counter claim) has failed to honour one or more of the terms of the contract, for example:

During the negotiations of the sale of my supersonic Ford KA, I state that I will provide a free service every year for the next 3 years (I know, I’m just too generous). Whilst I provide a service in the first year, I fail to provide a free service in the second year. I have therefore breached the terms of the contract.

Alternatively (and more likely), when negotiating the sale of my (incredibly manly) Ford KA, I accept ‘deferred consideration’ i.e. the offeree is entitled to make stage payments over the next 10 years e.g. £10,000 per annum. If the offeree fails to make the payments they shall be in breach of contract (and in this case, will probably have come to their senses).

In keeping with the above two examples, if both occurred as a result of the other, this is where counter claims exists i.e. I refused to service the Ford KA because the offeree failed to pay the £10,000 as required or the offeree failed to pay the £10,000 because I refused to service the Ford KA (this would also form a defence).

Making the claim

At the start of any litigious matter, the parties are required to negotiate before issuing legal proceedings. In the event that the parties fail to reach an agreement (because I want my £90,000), proceedings are issued with the court and the matter will proceed to trial. Once the judge has satisfied himself that a contract exists between the parties and that a breach has occurred he will listen to any defences that the party may have.

Defences

As discussed above, the defendant may assert that the failure on his part to pay the £10,000 was because I failed to service the car. If the judge agrees with this argument he is likely to make an order for specific performance for me to service the car for free or pay the service costs incurred by the defendant. However, if he believes my version of events (which is more likely) in that the defendant failed to pay the £10,000, he could enforce the contract and require the defendant to pay all the monies outstanding.

Remedies

There are several remedies available to the court in a breach of contract case but commonly the court will make an order for damages in favour of the claimant or order specific performance on the defendant to fulfil the contract.

Whilst the above is a brief outline of contract law (and breaches of contract), there are many other laws that form part of the contract including false advertising, invitations to treat, the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act, the Unfair Contract Terms Act and many more.

Whatever claim you think you may or may not have for breach of contract, please speak to one of our professional advisers for more information and a free no obligation consultation.

The tension between the two countries exists because both Britain and Argentina assert sovereignty rights over the islands. The dispute between the two countries is not helped by the complexity of international laws and UN Charters that seek to establish the extent of a states territory or rights over land overseas.

The dispute over the Falkland Islands is by no means unique, in South America alone there are 14 disputed territories or boundaries and closer to home there are disputes between Ireland and Britain as the extend of the Carlingford Lough boundary.

With regards to the Falkland Islands the British asserts it sovereignty as far back as 1690 when captain John Strong sailed to the Falklands (then uninhabited) and colonised the island for the first time.

Argentina’s claim arises in 1816 when it declared its independence from Spain. Spain had formally had de facto control of the islands after the British left due to economic reasons (leaving a plaque asserting its continued sovereignty). Argentina asserts that when it became independent it took sovereignty of the islands from Spain.

This is where the dispute becomes ever more complicated, no Argentinean had ever set foot on the islands at this time and the British had never relinquished sovereignty of the islands since landing in 1690. Whilst the British had inconsistently had de facto control over the islands for some 200 years (with countries such as France, Spain and the USA having de facto control for short periods of time) the British had always returned to the islands to reinforce its sovereignty.

On the 14th December 1960 The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”. This resulted in many colonies being granted independent status or reintegrating with a state that exerts a formal claim over the colony (e.g. Britain seceded Fiji in 1970). The difficulty with the Falklands and many other colonies around the world (not limited to Britain) is that the Falkland islanders wished to remain Britain.

Clause 2 of Resolution 1514 states:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”

Because of this clause, the Falkland islanders are free to choose to remain apart of Britain.

Argentina’s claim and the UN’s resolution 1514 is complicated further by the Falkland Island’s constitution that reasserts resolution 1514 i.e. that the islanders have a right to self determination.
With many states around the world recognising and disposing of both countries claim and the ever more complicated international laws and resolutions that exist there is no end in sight to the dispute over the Falkland Islands.

For many, the Falklands Island are simply a land mass in the South Atlantic, 250 miles from anywhere but for the islanders and Britain it is a strategic island, steeped in history and pride, with an ever increasing economic, social and cultural importance.

In the UK the concept of ownership of land has developed over many years with competing interests, ideology and philosophical arguments. Like many other countries (if not all other states) there was no concept of ownership of land for many millennia. In terms of our lengthy history, the idea that one can own land is a modern concept (being established only in the last few thousand years).

Many people take for granted that they can by a plot of land or a house but it has taken thousands of years for the concept of land ownership to develop and we have yet to reach a stage where allodial land exists for all (discussed below).

Here are a few brief concepts and ideas about land ownership

One of the most famous English concepts of land ownership was put forward by John Locke who in the 17th Century put forward the concept of natural rights for ownership of land. Locke believed that land was worthless in its natural form but if someone worked the land and produced food, shelter etc that person would own the land as they had given it value.

Feudalism

Feudalism occurred around the world (it is not unique to Britain which is a common misconception) and was found predominately in Japan and Britain. The idea was that the aristocracy owned the land and would grant the land (fief) to a vassal (person who wished to acquire the land). In return for the lord granting a fief to the vassal the vassal would have to contract with the lord for some sort of service, this normally took the form of military service (fighting in the lord’s army).

Royalty

In Britain (in the modern day), all land is said to be owned by the crown with the highest ownership of land being land held in ‘fee simple’ (land that can be taxed and has a superior landlord). In theory, all land in the UK can be traced back to a Royal Decree granting the rights in the land to a lord who then granted it to the people.

It is still a requirement in modern land law to establish ownership of land through deeds (until the land is registered at the Land Registry), a solicitor will draft an epitome of title which uses previous deeds (grants of land ownership) to establish a good title in the land (relevant to unregistered land). With that in mind, many philosophers still contend that feudalism is a concept that still exists today albeit in a modern form.

Allodial Land

Allodial Land is land that has no superior land lord and cannot be taxed (unlike land held in fee simple). It is incredibly rare to find allodial land anywhere in the world. As a concept of land ownership, this is how the majority of people in the world would like to hold their land. Whilst the land would still come under the jurisdiction of the state, the state would be unable to tax the land and hold only limited rights over it.

You may be forgiven for thinking that this is just a paradigm of land ownership but the United States of America has modern examples of allodial land in both Nevada and Texas.

In recent months PIP implants have been widely reported in the news because the materials used to manufacture the breast implants are below the standard required for implants, so much so that some commentators have suggested that the materials used were only suitable for the manufacturing of bed mattresses.

The poor quality implants have caused several problems for women across the globe with women experiencing swelling, rashes and irritation due to the implant leaking.

But who are Poly Implants Prothese?

Poly Implants Prothese was established by Jean-Claude Mas in 1991, the French company distributed breast implants across the globe enabling its owner to reap the rewards of a substantial and growing market.

However, the company is no stranger to controversy and the issue surrounding its implants goes back as far as 2000 when the sale of silicon implants were suspended by the FDA in the USA.

In 2001 the company started using industrial grade silicon that it manufactured on site rather than importing medical grade silicon appropriate for breast implants.

In 2009, surgeons in France started to notice an unusually high rupture rate for the implants and investigations commenced. This ultimately lead to substantial numbers of complaints by women who had received the implants forcing the company into liquidation.

Such was/is the gravity of the situation that an international arrest warrant for Jean-Claude Mas was issued by Interpol which ultimately led to his arrest in early 2012.

Whilst many women have now had their implants removed there are those that have yet to make a decision or feel that they cannot afford to do so.

For those that wish to have their implants removed (whether they have suffered or not), it may be possible to make a claim against the company that insured Poly Implants Prothese which should cover the cost of removing the offending implants and the addition of new implants.

If you have PIP implants and wish to discuss this matter with a solicitor, please telephone 0800 999 8880. Due to the sensitive nature of your claim we have female solicitors ready to speak with you in private.