Kevin, Essex

When you own a property, there are certain things that you need to be able to access in order to have full use and enjoyment of it.

Under the law, one of these rights is to have sufficient natural light into your property through ‘defined apertures’ – typically windows.

Most properties are built with natural light levels in mind, but you may face a challenge to your ‘right to light’ if developers apply to build on nearby land, for example.

What rights do you have?

Owners of a property have the right to a certain level of natural light within their property, even when that light covers someone else’s land or property. This applies only to the building itself, rather than, for example, the garden.

What this means in practice is that you have the right to object to construction work or development that would obstruct this natural light if your property has enjoyed this light for an uninterrupted period of 20 years or more, as stated by the Prescription Act 1832.

The Prescription Act 1832 defines an interruption in the enjoyment of light as one year or more.

The Rights of Light Act 1959 also reaffirms the 1832 Act as the most common and easiest way to obtain the right to light.

How can obstructions be challenged?

You will automatically obtain the right to light for your property after 20 years of ‘enjoyment without interruption’. When this occurs, you can issue an objection to any building work or development that would obstruct light from entering your property.

You must do this within 12 months of the light being obstructed.

You’ll be asked to demonstrate:

• That the interference with your right of light is substantial
• That the obstruction interferes with your enjoyment of the property
• That the light remaining in your property with the obstruction is insufficient
• That you have enjoyed 20 or more uninterrupted years of sufficient natural light.

It’s a good rule of thumb that a developer should inform all local residents about a potential obstruction where they have identified one, as this can avoid disputes and can protect both parties in the event of Court proceedings.

What happens next?

There are three possible outcomes once you have made a right to light claim:

• Rejection – Your claim may be rejected if your evidence isn’t strong enough or the light levels are deemed sufficient
• Damages – You may be awarded financial compensation for damages, while the development is allowed to go ahead
• Injunction – The Court may grant an injunction to prevent the development or order it to be substantially changed.

Injunctions are less commonly granted than damages as the Courts seek to balance the needs of the claimant and defendant. This is particularly true if the development is already completed, as it may have tenants, or the cost to demolish all or part of it may be deemed too high.

If you’re considering making a right to light claim, please contact our Dispute Resolution team today for tailored advice.

There has been a substantial amount of discussion around unfair dismissal in recent months, as the new Government has pledged to extend the right to claim unfair dismissal to all employees from the first day of their employment.

It has even mooted giving the right to other “workers” for the first time, with the aim that more of the country’s workforce should benefit from having stable work/greater salary security.

Ahead of any changes which may be announced, we’re looking at the claims you may have currently if you are dismissed.

Unfair dismissal

A dismissal will be unfair if the employer can show that the reason, or principal reason, for the employee’s dismissal was not one of the five potentially fair reasons: –

• Conduct
• Capacity (performance/ health)
• Redundancy
• If continuing the employment would be unlawful (e.g. if the employee lacked a work visa)
• Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR) – Sufficient to warrant dismissal

An Employment Tribunal finds that the employer did not act reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to justify dismissal.

This has been interpreted by the courts and tribunals as meaning that the dismissal must be both procedurally and substantively fair and is often referred to as “the reasonableness test”.

The ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary & Grievance Procedures sets out the minimum requirements for procedural fairness for certain types of fault-based dismissals.

Under the current law, the right to make an ordinary unfair dismissal claim is reserved for employees who have completed two or more years of service with their employer.

Some reasons for dismissing someone are automatically unfair and employees do not usually need to have two years’ service to bring such claims and the statutory cap on ordinary unfair dismissal compensatory awards may not apply to these claims.  These include: –

• Health and safety-related dismissals
• Dismissals for trade union membership/activities
• Selection for redundancy on discriminatory grounds
• Dismissal of whistle-blowers
• Dismissals related to a TUPE transfer (upon a business sales or the insourcing/outsourcing/re-tendering of a contract)
• Dismissal of shop workers for refusing Sunday working
• Dismissals for asserting certain statutory employment rights e.g. flexible working
• Dismissals related to exercising/refusing to forgo rights under the Working Time Regulations

Constructive dismissal

Also known as constructive wrongful dismissal, this is a situation in which an employee feels forced to leave their employment – they’re essentially accepting that their employer has committed a repudiatory breach of the employment contract (a significant breach going to its very heart).

Whilst these terminations may look like a resignation they are treated as a dismissal.

Constructive dismissal is a type of unfair dismissal so again two years’ service in usually needed before such claims can be brought, except for certain automatically unfair constructive dismissals.

Constructive dismissal claims are often based on the employer having conducted themselves in a way which breaches the implied term of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee which is implied into all employment contracts.

Sometimes the breach will not result from one act or omission, but as a result of a course of conduct, but there must be some event which is the final straw triggering act.

Timing (when the employee walks out relative to the breach relied upon) can be very significant. Usually, the employee has to act swiftly after a breach occurs, so it cannot be argued that by working on they have acquiesced to any breach and affirmed the contract.

That said, consideration should also be given to trying to resolve matters via the employer’s internal grievance procedures.

Constructive dismissal cases can be more difficult to win before a Tribunal than other unfair dismissal claims because of the need to prove the breach. Even where a breach is proved and the employee resigned swiftly in response to it, it is still open to the employer to argue there was a fair reason for the dismissal (see the 5 potentially fair reasons for dismissal listed above).

Generally, we would recommend employees take urgent legal advice before walking out of a job, so the timing of their doing so, the content of their “resignation letter”, the prospects of any constructive dismissal claim, their ability to fund it, and the possibility of reaching negotiated severance terms instead, can all be carefully considered first.

Wrongful dismissal

Wrongful dismissal is when an employer dismisses an employee in breach of contract / without giving them the notice they are entitled to under their employment contract (or statutory notice if longer). Wrongful dismissal claims are already a day-one right.

Other Claims

There can also be additional claims arising from dismissals, for example a dismissal might be discriminatory (on the grounds of sex/race/disability/age/sexual orientation/religion or belief etc) or could be less favourable treatment due to the employee being a part time or fixed term worker. There is no minimum service requirement for many of these other claims.

For further advice on dismissal and your rights as an employee, please contact our team today.

It’s no secret that we love our pets. According to Blue Cross statistics, 95 per cent of pet owners see their pet as part of the family. Over one third of households own dogs, and over one fifth own cats.

While our love of our pets can be a hugely uniting force, it can present a highly emotional challenge when relationships break down. When couples divorce or otherwise end a relationship, the vast majority will decide to live separately, with one partner taking the pet with them.

In some situations, this is decided easily between partners. However, many couples disagree strongly, and the living situation of a beloved pet can create intense disputes – particularly as the Courts are far less willing to intervene than in cases of financial or childcare arrangements.

Pets in the law

UK law generally treats pets as ‘chattel’ – personal possessions of one or both partners.

This means they are usually left up to the couple themselves to distribute in the event of a divorce or separation, rather than having the Courts intervene.

How this is achieved depends upon several factors, including:

• Whether the couple can come to a straightforward decision
• Whether the couple is married or cohabiting as partners
• Whether they purchased/adopted the pet together or not.

Under the law, who has the pet living with them is often a case of legal ownership, particular if one partner already owned the pet before entering the relationship – evidenced by vet registration, microchip information and purchase/adoption documents.

In this instance, it’s clear who legally owns the pet and who will be entitled to take it with them if the relationship ends.

If the other partner attempts to prevent this, this may become a legal matter, but only in the sense of property theft. The partner who owned the pet would need evidence that they are its legal owner to assert their rights under the law.

If the pet is shared, then the couple may consider who has been historically responsible for the pet’s care, whose home would provide the better environment for the pet and whether the couple has any children who are attached to the pet, and where they will be living.

Pets are considered joint marital assets for married couples, so a decision may be reached between the couple or at mediation or other dispute resolution sessions.

Addressing the issue – Pet-nups

Pet-nups do exactly what it says on the tin. They are a pre- or post-nuptial agreement relating specifically to pets in the event the relationship breaks down.

They can be a separate agreement or integrated into an all-encompassing pre-nup. You don’t need to be married to have a pet-nup despite their name – cohabiting couples can also have one.

Pet-nups help couples to decide what will happen to their pet in detail if they decide to separate, at the right time and when they are in the right headspace.

A pet-nup also allows couples to make decisions relating to their furry friend that aren’t an issue of legality and would not be decided on the rare occasion that formal legal proceedings took place, such as:

• Payment for food and veterinary care
• How the pet is trained and socialised
• Can the other person visit the pet?
• Who looks after the pet when the owner is on holiday?
• What happens when the pet is ill?
• End of life decisions for the pet.

This reduces the risk that the pet will become a source of conflict and resentment upon separation or divorce.

Are pet-nups enforceable?

Pet-nups are not legally binding – although they may be used as evidence of intent and agreement by the Courts.

The Courts will rarely get involved when couples are making decisions about their pets upon separation, although chattel assets can become points of contention during divorce proceedings and so pets may be considered in Court during a divorce.

However, this will usually be considered only from the perspective of legal ownership.

With a pet-nup in place, you are more likely to be able to argue for a situation that benefits the pet’s wellbeing and care. If it has been prepared well, then the Courts are likely to at least take it into consideration.

Ultimately, pet-nups are not designed primarily as a document for the Court. They’re designed to help couples avoid taking a dispute to the Court in the event that their relationship ends.

For advice on pet-nups, division of property and family disputes, please contact our specialist Family Law team today.

When a person dies and their cause of death is unknown or potentially violent, the coroner to whom the death was reported may hold an inquest.

This is a formal investigation into:

• Who the deceased person was
• When, where and how they died.

This will involve the Coroner’s Court collating and impartially reviewing evidence, statements from any witnesses, and medical reports such as the port-mortem to reach a conclusion.

An inquest cannot assign liability for a person’s death, but further criminal or civil proceedings may come after the Coroner’s Court decision once the cause of death has been determined. The coroner can also make recommendations to a body such as the NHS.

Businesses or organisations that may have had a role in the person’s death or have evidence as to what happened may be called upon to participate in the inquest.

How is a business involved in an inquest?

In the context of an inquest, a business may be an ‘interested party’ – A person or organisation which has the right to participate in the inquest, as designated by the coroner.

Common scenarios which may involve a business or organisation in an inquest include:

• A care home where a person has died
• A hospital trust where a person has died under its care
• A business where the death likely occurred on the premises.

The inquest may seek to determine whether health and safety procedures were followed and whether any failure or neglect on the part of the business contributed to the person’s death.

If the Coroner’s Court believes that evidence or testimony from your business may help the inquest, you may be called to give evidence or named as an interested party.

Seeking advice

When all evidence has been given, the Court will make a decision, which will either declare a cause of death or rule it to be unknown.

It is not the job of an inquest to assign liability or initiate further legal action.

However, the outcome of an inquest can be used to pursue your organisation for damages or even criminal liability if the evidence allows.

If the outcome of the inquest suggests that your organisation played a role in the person’s death, their family or the prosecution service may seek additional proceedings.

You should seek early legal advice if this seems a likely outcome, so that you can stay prepared and be transparent about what happened.

To support your business or organisation through an inquest, please contact our specialist team today.