MM March:Messenger

North West Law Tories plan £200 levy for all defendants convicted in courts March 2010 Every defendant convicted in a criminal court News would have to pay a levy of £200 under plans Regional Costs Judges being put forward by the Conservatives. Andrew page 4 Cowan of Ralli comments on the proposal... Specialist Family Lawyer for Abacus Dominic Grieve, the and is convicted, then it is Shadow Justice Secretary, perfectly acceptable to page 6 has said that a levy or a send out the message that fixed fee could raise £80 the prosecution and de- Hassall becomes Law Library President million a year towards the fence costs money — and costs of bringing criminals this fixed fee would do that,” page 7 to court. he said. Features Mr Grieve also indicated The levy would have to be that he would favour scrap- set at a reasonable level, so empt. It would only apply by the Commons Public Ac- Jackson on a Page ping the Legal Services that those on the lowest in- where defendants were counts Committee as “not fit Commission, the quango comes were not unable to granted legal aid, which for purpose”. Mr Grieve said: page 5 that runs the legal aid pay, Mr Grieve told The would mean more serious “The evidence suggests it is Business Valuations in scheme in England and Times. It would apply even cases that carry a risk of a not producing value for Wales, which costs £125 mil- to those on benefits, but serious penalty. money and so will be part of recessionary times lion to run. “It seems to me would not to every case; our quango review.” that if someone goes minor motoring offences or The Legal Services Commis- page 17 through the court process fixed penalties would be ex- sion was criticised last week continued on page 4 Regulars In House Q & A Law Society calls for re-think to flawed Kerry Crompton of IRIS Software Group Ltd page 9 Government energy planning laws Fran’s Foray used to interpret the law The Law Society is lobbying Parliament over the This month Fran talks to Greenwoods o There is considerable rep- Government's approach to the planning processes for major etition of existing planning page 11 infrastructure projects such as nuclear power plants. policies, but it is unclear why or what this achieves. Management Matters about the Government’s page 12 adoption of a site specific o The draft NPSs state that approach in the draft NPS they should apply to the de- Lifestyle for nuclear power genera- termination of applications tion. for planning permission out- pages 20-22 side the IPC regime, seem- The Government has identi- ingly overriding all other fied ten suitable sites for a planning policies such as Keep up to date with the Manchester new generation of nuclear local authorities’ develop- power stations and states ment frameworks which Legal Awards on Twitter that all ten are needed. have undergone public con- https://twitter.com/MLAwards Given that the NPS must be sultation and examination followed, this means that before a planning inspector once a location has been The Law Society has sub- projects. The decisions of identified as appropriate for David Brock chairman of the mitted written evidence the Infrastructure Planning that type of development Law Society Planning and setting out its serious con- Commission [IPC] must be and the NPS adopted, there Environmental Law Com- cerns about the frame- taken in accordance with will be little opportunity for mittee said: "Because of the work provided in the draft the NPSs unless that would the local community or democratic deficit in the National Policy State- be unlawful or the adverse other objectors to challenge process the Select Commit- ments (NPSs) for the de- impacts outweigh the bene- the suitability of the site for tee and Parliament have a termination of fits. The Law Society has al- nuclear development. That serious duty. They are the applications for major in- ways made it clear that it could only be done on the only democratic input into frastructure. believes this creates a dem- ground of unlawfulness or the process for determining ocratic deficit, because this that the adverse impacts our energy infrastructure The Law Society's Planning body is not accountable di- outweigh the benefits. and particularly the number & Environmental Law Com- rectly to the public. and location of nuclear mittee has identified diffi- The Society has a number of power stations." The Society culties which may The Law Society does not other concerns regarding agrees that the decision undermine the objective of have a view on the merits of the NPSs: making process needs to be speeding up decision mak- nuclear power generation, o The NPSs are policy state- ing on major infrastructure but the Society has concerns ments but they are being continued on page 4 The Monthly Publication of the Manchester Law Society Chancel Liability A chancel screening search does not conclusively establish whether a property is or is not subject to a chancel liability – so why pay for one? Just buy insurance online! No Screening Report Cost! No Admin Fee! No VAT! Below is a sample cost comparison for residential properties valued up to £500,000: Non-Successor Cover Successor Cover Screening Report (inc VAT) £100,000 £250,000 £500,000 £100,000 £250,000 £500,000 No Screening CCS Report Required £16.00 £16.00 £20.00 £25.00 £25.00 £37.50 ChancelSure ChancelSure ChancelCheck ChancelCheck £45.88 £59.88 £80.88 £70.88 £100.88 £130.88 & ChancelSure £17.63 Inclusive of £5.88 (inc VAT) Admin Fee Inclusive of £5.88 (inc VAT) Admin Fee All premiums shown above are inclusive of IPT. Please note that other limits of indemnity and premiums are available. Non-Successor policies cover the purchasers and their lenders but do not cover successors in title or their lenders. Successor policies cover the purchasers, their successors in title and their respective lenders. We do not add administration fees to our premiums and do not require a needless search. However, if you decide to carry out a chancel screening search, you can still have our policy for the same premium. We think it’s a no-brainer and you will too! We also offer a full range of conveyancing insurance solutions, e.g. search, planning & building regulations, restrictive covenant, defective title, etc. – it takes seconds to obtain a quote and purchase a policy. Try it – you’ll like it! Get smart – find out more at ccs-insurance.co.uk or call 020 7256 3836 Cost comparison correct at 16/02/2010 CCS Insurance is a portfolio of insurance products provided and arranged by Conveyancing Risk Management Limited (CRM Limited). Registered No. 04568951. Registered Office: St. Paul’s House, Warwick Lane, London EC4M 7BP. CRM Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Manchester Law Society Presidentʼs Column 3 Apart from the news on BVT the big recent news has un- their professional integrity as providers of impartial advice. doubtedly been the publication of Lord Jackson’s final report On top of the attack on the professional integrity is the argu- giving his review of civil litigation costs and, more impor- ment that the existence of referral fees and claims manage- tantly, giving his proposals for the future. I am not going to ment companies serves no useful purpose other than to attempt to summarise the report, many others have done introduce a layer of cost between the client and the lawyer that already and if you are in the field of civil litigation you and thus brings about an attack on the standard of the ad- will no doubt already have received one of the several sum- vice and service that the lawyer will give. Essentially they not maries doing the email rounds. only serve no useful purpose but additionally they squeeze the profit margin and this necessarily results in a reduction If you have not then we have published in The Messenger in the standard of service given. Robert Musgrove’s document entitled ‘Jackson on a Page’. He has also undertaken a more detailed review on Lord Justice On the one hand we have a call for the stringent mainte- Jackson’s recommendations and his comments can be found nance of professional standards by the abolition of referral at http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/lord-justice- fees which serve no useful purpose. Implicit in this argument jacksons-report-recommendations-with-comments-by- is the assumption that if clients do not go to claims farmers robert-musgrove.doc then they will go direct to lawyers which will be better for all practices. Dan Cutts, Foil President has given his views of the report at the following website People on the other side of the argument however see a very http://www/insurancetimes.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=13&storycode=383303&c=3. different picture. One major issue raised by Lord Jackson which, if the corre- A substantial number of law firms have been built upon busi- Referral fees, a spondence section of the Law Society Gazette is anything to ness models which have referral fees and the payment for go by, still divides the profession completely, is the question cases at the centre of their structure. These firms see referral return to of referral fees. fees, at their very worst, as a necessary evil, and at their best they are simply part of the marketing budget and operate to professional Towards the end of last year the National Law Society Coun- sub-contract the marketing for work to claims management cil passed a resolution in favour of campaigning for the abo- companies.

Load more