Facebook risks exposed
In a guest spot on Charon QC’s blog, Cornwall and Devon-based Stephens Scown Solicitors in England address the all-too-common practice of using social media to air work-related grievances, and cite a few recent examples to boot.
The case of Preece v JD Wetherspoon demonstrates the potential potholes that crop up when commenting on an incident at work, as a pub manager was fairly dismissed for making inappropriate comments about two customers who had threatened to abuse her. A tribunal found her comments were in the public domain and therefore risked damaging her employer’s reputation.
In Gosden v Lifeline Products an employee’s worst nightmare came true when an offensive chain email he sent from home to a colleague worked itself into the company’s system. A tribunal concluded that the employer’s reputation with a significant client had been damaged and the dismissal for gross misconduct was upheld.
Don’t mention the Olympics
Alex Aldridge, editor of the blog Legal Cheek, suggests it may be a great summer for Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer trainees and associates, as the firm is nervous about giving corporate hospitality tickets it has got as part of its sponsorship deal of the Olympics to clients after the introduction of the UK’s Bribery Act.
After attending a sleek 99-days-to-go party to celebrate Freshfields’ £10 million sponsorship of the 2012 games, Mr Aldridge was clearly less than impressed with picking up an Olympics branded mug (this publication bagged an umbrella) rather than a front row seat at the synchronised swimming.
But, as he points out, perhaps the main hitch with the biggest law firm sponsorship deal in history was that the firm’s many German partners – a product of the 2000 merger between the City’s Freshfields and German pair Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund and Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber – are not overly enthused about sponsoring a British-based event.
Face-saving in China
The battle between Apple and Proview in the Chinese iPad name dispute seems to have had cold water poured over it in recent weeks, despite the early vitriol and heavy impact it may still have on Apple and China.
Dan Harris at China Law Blog suggests that the latest news on the subject – China encouraging both sides to settle – demonstrates the tricky nature of the rule of law in the country.
‘The Apple-Proview case is what I would describe as a highly sticky case in that the law seems to favour Proview, but a ruling for Proview does not favour China,’ says Mr Harris.
Basing his theory strictly on media reports, Mr Harris adds: ‘To put it simplistically, it seems that Proview tricked Apple into believing that Apple had purchased the iPad name in China from Proview when, in fact, under Chinese law, Apple had not.’
The conclusion: ‘The Chinese government is going to need to come up with a face-saving solution for Apple that will involve Apple maybe indirectly paying off Proview while receiving some sort of major bone from the Chinese government. Something that will give Proview money and yet still allow Apple to claim an overall victory.’
Church and state clash on Christian radio
Rosalind English at the UK Human Rights Blog has commented on a High Court decision to uphold the banning of a Christian advertisement on radio on the grounds that it contravened the prohibition on political advertising.
The case – London Christian Radio Ltd and Anor v Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) and Secretary of State for Culture – upheld the ban on political advertising to protect the public from the potential mischief of partial political advertising, and found the views of the advertiser, as to whether an advertisement was political, were irrelevant.
On her blog Ms English writes: ‘It invariably comes down to preferences and the judgment as to which messages fall foul of the Communications Act’s prohibition is inevitably impure. A line is drawn in the context of one situation such as the instant case, but the likelihood is it will be drawn differently when the situation and the participants change.
‘In consequence, this debate forces the question of whether there is, in truth, any form of issue-driven speech that is not political, if “political” is so broadly defined as to cover anything that has consequences.’
In a guest spot on Charon QC’s blog, Cornwall and Devon-based Stephens Scown Solicitors in England address the all-too-common practice of using social media to air work-related grievances, and cite a few recent examples to boot.
The case of Preece v JD Wetherspoon demonstrates the potential potholes that crop up when commenting on an incident at work, as a pub manager was fairly dismissed for making inappropriate comments about two customers who had threatened to abuse her. A tribunal found her comments were in the public domain and therefore risked damaging her employer’s reputation.
In Gosden v Lifeline Products an employee’s worst nightmare came true when an offensive chain email he sent from home to a colleague worked itself into the company’s system. A tribunal concluded that the employer’s reputation with a significant client had been damaged and the dismissal for gross misconduct was upheld.
Don’t mention the Olympics
Alex Aldridge, editor of the blog Legal Cheek, suggests it may be a great summer for Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer trainees and associates, as the firm is nervous about giving corporate hospitality tickets it has got as part of its sponsorship deal of the Olympics to clients after the introduction of the UK’s Bribery Act.
After attending a sleek 99-days-to-go party to celebrate Freshfields’ £10 million sponsorship of the 2012 games, Mr Aldridge was clearly less than impressed with picking up an Olympics branded mug (this publication bagged an umbrella) rather than a front row seat at the synchronised swimming.
But, as he points out, perhaps the main hitch with the biggest law firm sponsorship deal in history was that the firm’s many German partners – a product of the 2000 merger between the City’s Freshfields and German pair Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund and Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber – are not overly enthused about sponsoring a British-based event.
Face-saving in China
The battle between Apple and Proview in the Chinese iPad name dispute seems to have had cold water poured over it in recent weeks, despite the early vitriol and heavy impact it may still have on Apple and China.
Dan Harris at China Law Blog suggests that the latest news on the subject – China encouraging both sides to settle – demonstrates the tricky nature of the rule of law in the country.
‘The Apple-Proview case is what I would describe as a highly sticky case in that the law seems to favour Proview, but a ruling for Proview does not favour China,’ says Mr Harris.
Basing his theory strictly on media reports, Mr Harris adds: ‘To put it simplistically, it seems that Proview tricked Apple into believing that Apple had purchased the iPad name in China from Proview when, in fact, under Chinese law, Apple had not.’
The conclusion: ‘The Chinese government is going to need to come up with a face-saving solution for Apple that will involve Apple maybe indirectly paying off Proview while receiving some sort of major bone from the Chinese government. Something that will give Proview money and yet still allow Apple to claim an overall victory.’
Church and state clash on Christian radio
Rosalind English at the UK Human Rights Blog has commented on a High Court decision to uphold the banning of a Christian advertisement on radio on the grounds that it contravened the prohibition on political advertising.
The case – London Christian Radio Ltd and Anor v Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) and Secretary of State for Culture – upheld the ban on political advertising to protect the public from the potential mischief of partial political advertising, and found the views of the advertiser, as to whether an advertisement was political, were irrelevant.
On her blog Ms English writes: ‘It invariably comes down to preferences and the judgment as to which messages fall foul of the Communications Act’s prohibition is inevitably impure. A line is drawn in the context of one situation such as the instant case, but the likelihood is it will be drawn differently when the situation and the participants change.
‘In consequence, this debate forces the question of whether there is, in truth, any form of issue-driven speech that is not political, if “political” is so broadly defined as to cover anything that has consequences.’
Email your news and story ideas to: [email protected]
