Licensing with Emmersons Solicitors

Share |

Emmersons Solicitors has launched a new Licensing advice and representation service to its portfolio of expertise.

If you need advice or even if you have only a query please contact richard.twyford@emmersons-solicitors.co.uk.

We have offices in Newcastle and Sunderland and access to offices in Middlesbrough. We will make visits to your premises to assist you through the planning process.

We have created a specific Facebook page.Which has all sorts of links on it and we hope that it will be come an active forum for those concerned about licensing.

Working together for an amicable and just end

Share |
   

This article will appeare in Accent:

"Divorce and separation – words which are synonymous with stress and anxiety. But while the breakdown of any relationship is sure to be a painful experience, a new process, known as Collaborative Law, is helping families to reach mutually-acceptable agreements when dividing their assets and coming to decisions as to the care of their children, without involving the courts.

Jacqueline Emmerson, of Emmerson Solicitors, has been qualified for 22 years and is a member of the Law Society’s Family Law panel. Having been involved in countless divorce cases over the years, she has seen first-hand the benefits that Collaborative Law can bring to clients by allowing them to settle matters more amicably, while also giving them more of an input into the decisions which are reached.

“The idea is that people come away feeling that they’ve reached a compromise that’s workable for them,” says Jacqueline. “The added advantage is that they will also have legal advice throughout.”

Once both parties have appointed specialist Collaborative Lawyers, the process can begin. In the first instance, they would each sit down separately with their own solicitors to set out the issues they would like to discuss at their first four-way meeting. Jacqueline explains: “Often, the things that clients want to discuss at the first meeting are not what a solicitor would usually discuss, so the client is given more control straight away.”

The two solicitors would then meet alone to agree an agenda, which is sent to both parties before the first round-table meeting. At this point, clients must sign a contract which stipulates that if they are unable to agree on matters and decide to pursue the court route instead, they must each appoint a new solicitor. Not only does this act as an incentive for clients to persevere with the process when the going gets tough, but it also allows for a more open discussion, free from the fear that the information they share could be used against them at a later stage.

“With the Collaborative approach, clients generally come away feeling that they’ve had more of an influence over the process,” Jacqueline adds. “The outcome is governed by them rather than a judge.

“From a solicitor’s point of view Collaborative Law is a new experience; instead of us doing all the talking, we find ourselves listening more – my husband is delighted to hear it!” she laughs.

Contact Emmersons on (0191) 284 6989 (Newcastle) or (0191) 567 6667 (Sunderland). Alternatively, visit: www.emmersons-solicitors.co.uk "

Is Theresa May barking mad?

Share |
The cat at the centre of an Immigration stormhighlights the problem that exists generally in this country which is that expressing an opinion is an inalienable right-even if one doesn't know what one is talking about.

The Immigration Judge in the initial hearing referred to the cat. This was done in a jocular way and was not the main reason for allowing the Bolivian to stay.

The decision of the Judge was appealed and the appeal was lost because the Home Office failed to apply its own rules properly. That is the real reason he was allowed to stay. The Home Office got it wrong.

Yesterday I hearda story of a young man who was arrested two days running for allegedly setting fire to cars. He was arrested the first time on the basis that the Police thought he was the man. They had no evidence. They had no forensic evidence ie DNA, no cctv evidence, no eye witness evidence and no corroborative evidence. He did not confess. He was released on bail and arrested again after further cars were burned out. The reason for the arrest the second time was that he had been arrested before. There was still no evidence of any type that he was involved in the offences. He stayed in custody overnight before being released.

The idea that we dont in the UK in 21st Century need the human rights act is misplaced. The idea that foreigners, gay people, travellers and other minority groups such as the disabled are treated well and equally and have nothing to fear is misplaced.

The Home Secretary has shown by her own words that she is willing to make new law and change existing law based upon her own prejudice and misinformation. Even when one of her own cabinet collegues points out that she has got it wrong she still wont admit that she has got it wrong.

What those who support reform of the Human Rights Act dont get is that often it is not the criminal's right to a family life which is being considered but the right of children, wife or partner to continue to have a family life which has most probably arisen during a long period of time when Government and its agencies have failed to do timeously what they had the power to do. The real scandal is the failure of Government to apply its own rules and to introduce systems that work.

An example of this is the legal aid spend on benefits appeals. If the DWP got it wrong more often there would be less appeals. If there are less appeals there is less need for money to be spent on legal aid and on Tribunal time to hear the appeals. The benefits system is too complicated. Government has done nothing about this. The benefits system is too complicated. the DWP continue to get their calculations wrong. The Government answer-cut legal aid.

The Justice Committee report (available here) into Access to Justice discloses genuine concerns about legal aid and access to justice and the Government response. Have a look at page 13 in particular.

The Conservatives dont believe in a lot of things. They appear to me to be angry, selfish, small-minded people willing to sound off about the injustice of something or other when in fact all they want is to pay less tax. paying less tax is a great idea so long as we retain a civilised society. Its all "Me, Me, Me" with the Conservatives and all "What? What? What?" with Labour and all "Em! Em! Em!" with Lib Dems.

Along with the right to speak is the obligation to listen. Listening in silence usually produces decsions based upon contemplation.

Time to be quiet, Home Secretary.