News, Advice and Discussions on British Law

Football in pubs but dont play the anthem!

Practically this is a victory to the publicans. Although the Judge Kitchin LJ ruled in the Premier League’s favour in relation to some of the copyright issues. The judge held that the publican defendants were infringing copyright by communicating the works to the public in breach of section 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 however they had a defence to infringement in relation to copyright in the films included in the broadcasts in section 72(1)(c) of the CDPA.

Therefore the Premier League have a claim of copyright infringement in relation to the PL anthem and certain graphics.

While we wait for the declarations from all parties, surely this will mean that publicans are free to show premier league matches provided they do not play the anthem or show any of the premier league graphics?

So is this the end for SKY in pubs?

NO TRACKBACKS  ANY TRACKBACKS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DELETED AND MARKED AS SPAM

Use Good Faith and Uphold the Trust

Trustee’s primary obligation is to carry out the Trust purposes in accordance with the Trust Deed or other foundation documentation.
The utmost good faith is required of anyone aspiring to be a Trustee.  A high degree of probity, honesty, and integrity are required in undertaking to ensure the fulfilment of the Trust.
Once the purposes of a public Trust have been declared, the donor is not entitled to intervene or change them.

Joint Responsibility

Trusteeship imposes a duty on each Trustee to ensure that the actions of his fellows comply with the Trust Deed and with the law.
Even although day-to-day management may be, and sometimes practically must be, delegated, overall supervision lies with the Trustees as a whole.  Trustees are not entitled through good nature or embarrassment or indolence or ignorance to allow co-Trustees free rein to do as they see fit.
Allowing a co-Trustee to commit a breach of trust, whether expressed or implied, will involve both Trustees in the consequences of breach of trust.

Charity Trustees and Quasi Trustees

The responsibility for charities extends beyond those who are formally Trustees  – by statute all who are “concerned in the management or control” of bodies recognised as charities in Scotland, whether Trustees or not, are bound to administer the charity honestly and ensure the sound management and proper application of its assets.

Own Opinions

Trustees are entitled to have their own opinions but must distance themselves from these and not allow them to undermine the Trust.  They cannot allow themselves to be influenced by matters extraneous to the terms and purposes of the Trust and must uphold Trust strategy.

Advice

It is the duty of Trustees to take advice but make their own decisions in the light of the advice

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

Trustees must separate their own interests and personality from the interest and personality of the Trust.
If a Trustee finds he cannot do that, he should abstain from participating in relevant decisions and if it goes further than single issues should resign as a Trustee.

Standard of Care

The standard of management is the same standard of care that a prudent man of business would take in his own affairs.  This involves having a reasoned and reasonable basis for decisions taken.

Avoid Breach of Trust

Trustees must not allow a conflict of interest to develop between themselves and the Trust  – to do so is a breach of trust.
Breach of trust can involve dishonesty but can also consist in failure to observe the law or failure to seek proper advice.
It includes any form of bad management or neglect or any act that goes against the purposes of the Trust.  Allowing a co-Trustee to commit a breach of trust is itself a breach of trust.
It is no defence that the other Trustees concurred nor that they acted in good faith.
Similarly, it is no defence that Trustees in breach have exercised the same prudence that they do in their own affairs; a Trustees’ actions must be measured against the objective standards of prudence and ordinary diligence.

Liability for Actions

The general rule is that Trustees incur personal liability on a joint and several basis. The liability of the Trust Estate is determined by the liability of the Trustees, not their ability to pay.

Trustees can take out their own insurance to cover liability for their actings but this can only be met from Trust funds where there is authority in a Deed of Trust or a scheme approved by the court.  However, if insurance cover is justified by the nature of the Trustees’ activities the expenditure on premiums may be justified.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE

Trustees are personally liable for their failures.  If it appears to the Lord Advocate that there is or has been any misconduct or mismanagement in the affairs of a charity, he may suspend any person concerned in its management of control pending action by the Court of Session.  It may remove and disqualify that person from office.

NO TRACKBACKS  ANY TRACKBACKS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DELETED AND MARKED AS SPAM

On 8th December, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) released the latest figures on divorces taking place in 2010.  Having recently written about the trends over recent years, and what this tells us about the health of marriage as an institution, it is worth considering how these latest stats affect the bigger picture.

The headline is that the number of divorces in 2010 rose; the first annual rise in eight years (since 2003) and seemingly out of step with the broader trend.  The total number of divorces that occurred in 2010 came to 119,589 representing a 4.9% increase on 2009’s 113,949 divorces.  Although, on the surface, this does seem to suggest a rise in the prevalence of divorce the figure could potentially be explained by other factors such as a larger married population – more tellingly the divorce rate, that is the percentage of the married population that got divorced, also rose from 10.5% in 2009 to 11.1% in 2010. So does this reinforce the perception that more marriages are failing?

Rather than an indication of a broader shift in societal attitudes it is more likely that the results for 2010 mark a glitch in a longer term decline in divorce rates. This kind of glitch or spike in divorce rates has been seen at other points in recent history when the country has been on the tail end of a recession.  In 1993 the rate spiked following the recession between 1990 and 1992. There seems to have been a lag between the worst of the financial troubles and a jump in divorces and it seems plausible that this could also hint at causality;  financial issues are one of the major causes of relationship breakdowns and the lag may be explained by a) an initial reaction to ‘pull together’ to deal with money issues, b) the build up of subsequent pressures in the relationship and then, c) once the relationship has broken down, the time it takes for divorce process itself to complete.

In terms of the broader picture, the actual number of divorces has been noticeably falling for the last decade although it is easy to attribute this to the corresponding fall in marriages and previous divorce trends eroding the size of the married population in the first place.  The fact that the divorce rate has been steadily falling too suggests that those who are married are less likely to split.

Further evidence comes from the profile of those couples involved. More divorces involved individuals aged 40-44 than any other age group in 2010 but interestingly it seems that the age at which people divorce is creeping up (both men and women had 0.2 increases to 44.2 and 41.7 respectively), albeit in line with the rise in the age at which people are marrying, whilst the duration of marriages has plateaued.  Moreover, the highest rate of divorces for men in 2010 was seen in the 30-34 year old age group rather than the 25-29 group in 2009 (women were unchanged).  This may all suggest that marriages are starting later but are beginning to last a little longer.

Despite the latest figures telling us that 33% of marriages starting in 1995 had failed in the 15 year period to 2010 (up from 22% of those in the same 15 year period from 1970) the ONS is suggesting that the figures they have obtained so far may indicate that the rate of divorce before the 15th year for more recent marriages may be likely to decline.  Again this adds a little more weight to the argument that couples now seem to be waiting longer (cohabiting), being more cautious but ultimately, as a result, being more successful in their marriages.

In summary, it would seem most likely that the rise in divorces in 2010 is a spike, as witnessed in previous periods of recession, rather than a longer term trend.  There is still evidence in the age and duration of those getting divorced to support the bigger picture that couples are being more successful in marriage, but only time will tell.

NO TRACKBACKS  ANY TRACKBACKS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DELETED AND MARKED AS SPAM