This month Griffin Law has again broken new ground in the field of internet harassment.

In the case of AMP v Persons Unknown, Griffin Law obtained a super-injunction that criminalises the further harassment of a young girl who had private pictures from her stolen mobile phone uploaded to the internet. Those who take part in such illegal file sharing through torrent sites or otherwise can be identified and are subject to immediate arrest: a decision that has potentially wide implications for illegal file sharers worldwide.

The judgment has been reported in The Daily Mail, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph, as well as being discussed online.

If you are a victim of cyber bullying, impersonation or online harassment, Griffin Law is uniquely placed to help you. You need not suffer in silence. Contact Donal Blaney by email at justice@griffinlaw.co.uk or by phone on 020 7152 6558. 

The decision in (1) Christine Brown-Quinn (2) Webster Dixon LLP v (1) Equity Syndicate Management Ltd (2) Motorplus Ltd; Webster Dixon LLP v (1) Equity Syndicate Management Ltd (2) ACM ULR Ltd; (1) Janine Baxter (2) Webster Dixon Ltd v (1) Equity Syndicate Management (2) Motorplus Ltd [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm) concerns three clients who wished to bring or continue proceedings under a commonly available BTE insurance policy.

One client instructed a non-panel firm from the onset of the case while the other two had their instructions transferred to a non-solicitor firm. In each case the insurers said that they were entitled, if a client instructed a non-panel firm, to insist that the solicitor they chose to instruct must not charge more than the rates prescribed in their terms of appointment for non-panel solicitors. The hourly rate was £125 but two of the clients instructed solicitors who charged £139. The insurers disputed these rates and informed the firm they would not agree to them acting. The firm continued to act for the three clients for what they considered to be reasonable rates.

The decision on 21 October 2011 in the High Court stated that BTE insurers were not entitled to reject an insured’s choice of solicitors under the policy on the basis that their rates were in excess of those in the insurers terms of appointment. The fees of solicitors who had not agreed to the prescribed rates should be assessed pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, not restricted by those rates but taking account of them. The defendants have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

This case raised an important issue in relation to freedom of choice under the Insurance Companies (Legal Expense Insurance) Regulations 1990 (the Regulations) which were enacted under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 with the intention of implementing the Legal Expense Insurance Directive (87/344/EEC) .

This decision supported the view of the Law Society that insurers should not be able to impose terms on non-panel solicitors that in effect deny a client the right to instruct a solicitor of their choosing under the terms of a legal expense insurance.

If you would like Griffin Law to represent you in any dispute, whether under a BTE policy or otherwise, please contact Donal Blaney at justice@griffinlaw.co.uk. 

The decision in Brookes v HSBC Bank PLC [2011] EWCA Civ 354 concerns an appeal from the decision that when the Applicant discontinued her claim she was liable to pay the Defendant’s costs in the proceedings. The Applicant brought an action against her credit card issuer in respect of an alleged failure to produce a true copy of the signed credit agreement in accordance with Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Before the end of the litigation the credit card issuer was able to provide the requested copy documents to the Applicant, such that it fulfilled its duty under Section 78.

Upon analysis by the Applicant’s solicitors it was found that the agreement was compliant with the relevant legislation and was therefore fully enforceable and as such, the Applicant discontinued her claim. She sought her costs in the proceedings from her lender, claiming that the purpose of the litigation was to obtain a copy of the agreement, and therefore after having obtained a copy of the agreement it was the responsible action for her to discontinue her claim.

However, the Judge concluded that the real purpose of the Applicant’s proceedings was not to obtain a copy of the agreement, but to establish that in the absence of a copy of the original agreement that the debt was unenforceable, and once it became clear that the lender had complied with its obligations that claim was bound to fail.

In accordance with the court’s principles, developed in the case of Far Out Productions v Unilever [2009] EWHC 3484, where a Claimant discontinues proceedings there is a presumption that a Defendant should recover his costs. It is only in rare circumstances that this presumption does not apply, usually only in cases where a Defendant causes a change in circumstances through his unreasonable conduct which in all the circumstances would provide a good reason for departing from the rule. As this was not an exceptional circumstance, the Judge awarded costs to the Defendant. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The recent case of R (on the application of (1) Prudential Plc (2) Prudential (Gibraltar) Limited) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors has reiterated that when HM Revenue & Customs seeks disclosure of documents from an individual or business taxpayer pursuant to section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, all documents must be disclosed other than those protected by legal professional privilege.

This means that advice provided by or correspondence with accountants, tax advisers or IFAs is not protected by legal professional privilege.

Frank communications between those seeking lawfully to limit their liability to tax and their accountants, tax advisers and IFAs can therefore be obtained, read and analysed by HM Revenue & Customs and can be used by HM Revenue & Customs as the basis for challenging the effectiveness of advice or structures put in place to avoid tax.

To ensure your personal and business tax affairs remain confidential, the only option is for you to instruct lawyers, who are protected by legal professional privilege. Otherwise you may regret your decision when HM Revenue & Customs come knocking.

To discuss your tax affairs with Griffin Law, contact us or email justice@griffinlaw.co.uk.

The Daily Mail

Since a landmark case in October 2009, Griffin Law has been recognised as being at the forefront of helping teachers and other victims of cyber-bullying unmask their tormentors. The pupils or their parents are then brought to justice, forced to account for their unlawful actions and can then be forced to compensate those whose lives they underhandedly sought to ruin.

The message is simple: bullies cannot cower behind anonymity on the internet, and those whose lives are ruined by cyber-bullies can now have access to justice.

For help in unmasking cyber-bullies, contact Griffin Law by email at justice@griffinlaw.co.uk.

The Equality Act 2010 came into force on 1 October 2010.  It prohibits discrimination in respect of the provision of services by, for example, owners of sports venues on grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marital status, civil partnerships, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. The burdens on employers, as well as service providers, are heavy.

While on the face of it, of course, no employer or service provider would ordinarily wish to discriminate, the Equality Act 2010 provides for unlimited damages to be awarded, together with compensation for injured feelings – and the burden of proof is reversed.

In other words, if you are accused of discrimination, you are required to prove that you have not discriminated against the complainant.

While there are, as ever, various exemptions that apply that should, in theory, prevent baseless claims from being brought by those who feel they have been discriminated against, the Equality Act 2010 provides a powerful disincentive to those whose attitudes remain stuck in the 1800s and will be a powerful weapon to be deployed by those whose rights are infringed.

For specific advice relating to your situation, whether as a potential complainant or as a respondent to any complaint, contact Griffin Law in confidence by email at justice@griffinlaw.co.uk.

“Excellent service – Excellent results: big law from a small firm”

SGB Holdings Limited

“The Griffin Law legal team put me at ease instantly. They are cool, calm and fiercely professional. I was kept up to date at every step of my year long case, and their legal worked succeeded where the police had failed. Griffin Law is both a safety net, and an attack dog.”

CJM, London SW7

“It is such a short time that I have had opportunity to meet with you and I have no hesitation in saying that I am your client for life time now. Thank you so much for your hard work and professionalism. I am truly proud that you are my solicitor.”

Kamran Afzal, London N1

“Have dealt with many many firms over the years, Griffin Law are now my first point of contact for any legal issues I may have”.

JCS, Oxford

“Griffin Law are cost-effective, proactive and commercially aware – just the ticket”.

Julian Ribet, Levison Meltzer Pigott, London EC4

“I had never needed a lawyer before. Working with Griffin Law was painless. They won my case, and won handsomely!”

Sophie F, London

Not content with curtailing lending to small business owners, restricting mortgage lending and continuing to pay out excessive bonuses, banks are now daring to challenge Financial Services Authority rules on PPI complaints through the courts.

In December, new rules come into force. The British Bankers Association believes that these rules are unfair and should be overturned by the High Court. This is despite the fact that there have been over a million complaints made to lenders about PPI, almost 50,000 complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman and over 80% of those complaints have been upheld.

The banks are using taxpayers’ money to contest regulations that are designed to protect the very taxpayers who bailed them out. Griffin Law is proud to stand up for consumers whose rights have been infringed by the greed of bankers and their staff.

If you would like to discuss whether you have a cause for complaint against, and a right to compensation from, a bank, please contact justice@griffinlaw.co.uk.

R is for Reasonable – Griffin Law offers its clients reasonably priced legal services.

I is for Intuitive – Griffin Law anticipates the goals of its clients and the developments in cases.

F is for Friendly – Griffin Law staff are welcoming and sympathetic to clients’ desires.

F is for Fast – Griffin Law is proactive, not reactive.

I is for Informative – Griffin Law shares its lawyers’ knowledge with its clients, helping them avoid future pitfalls.

N is for No-Nonsense – Griffin Law lawyers tell their clients what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

L is for Local – Griffin Law is proud to act for local residents of Hawkhurst, Sandhurst and surrounding villages in the High Weald.

A is for Accurate – Griffin Law lawyers show a superior level of attention to detail.

W is for Winners – Griffin Law is the kind of law firm that you want on your side, not acting against you.

The Order which is called a Blaney’s Blarney Order after the subject matter – a blog called Blaney’s Blarney (donalblaney.com) – requires an unknown Twitter user anonymously posting under the same name, and thus breaching the copyright and intellectual property of the blog’s owner, to stop posting and immediately identify themselves.

The Blaney’s Blarney Order is the first order ever to be served via Twitter and signals an end to anonymous breaches of the law on Twitter or any other internet site.

Griffin Law, the solicitors who dealt with the matter, are experts in the law of the internet and have successfully prevented internet impersonation before on Facebook and Blogger.

Matthew Richardson, the barrister who devised and won the Blaney’s Blarney Order, said: “The Blaney’s Blarney Order is a huge step forward in preventing anonymous abuse of the internet. People have to learn that they can no longer hide behind the cloak of anonymity the internet provides and break the law with impunity.”

Donal Blaney, the victim of the anonymous impersonation and the principal of Griffin Law, said: “This is an important step in dealing with online bullying. The scales of justice have been tilted in favour of innocent victims today.”

This story has featured in the following:

• The Sun
• The Times
• The BBC
• Channel 4
• The Daily Telegraph
• The Independent
• The Daily Mail
• Metro
• The Guardian
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• TIME

Blogs and specialist publications covering this legal first include:

• Guido Fawkes
• Tory Bear
• Shane Greer
• Huffington Post
• Reuters
• PC World
• Computer World
• Mac World
• PC Advisor
• IT World