The IT educational initiative has already been implemented into schools with key stage 1 children learning about coding and algorithms. On 10 February 2016 ministers announced a new educational initiative to promote “vital” IP education to GCSE / key stage 4 students.

The UK Intellectual Property Office and Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG have produced lesson plans for teachers labeled ‘Think Kit‘ which are designed to enable both students and teachers to understand what Intellectual Property (IP) is, how to get the most from your ideas and how innovation plays a vital part in our economy.

The UK Intellectual Property Office also has other resources from key stage 1 upwards and it is exciting to see that children will be learning about innovation from an early age.

As IP has and is being recognised by government ministers as vital to our economy, it seems to makes sense to introduce this concept at school level.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property said:

“It’s important for tech-savvy young people to learn about the principles of intellectual property. The UK creative sector is worth over £76 billion, which makes education even more important.

Providing access to relevant, curriculum linked education resources is a huge step towards creating an IP literate generation to help us secure the UK’s continued global competitiveness.”

For more information on Intellectual Property generally please contact Emily Timmins, Partner.

There are going to be a significant number of changes to company law which will affect all companies registered at Companies House in the UK. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the Act) brought about a number of fundamental changes to UK company law and one of the confirmed changes, which is perhaps the most controversial, is the introduction of a central public registry of those individuals who hold significant control of UK companies – referred to in the Act as “People with Significant Control” or “PSC“.

Who constitutes a Person with Significant Control (PSC)?

A PSC is anyone in the company who meets one or more of the conditions listed in the Act.  This is a person who:

• owns more than 25% of the company’s shares
• owns more than 25% of the company’s voting rights
• has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors
• has significant influence or control over the company
• has significant influence or control over a trust or firm (in the case of shares held by trustees or a trust or by members of a partnership)

Companies and other entities may also be considered to be PSCs in certain circumstances.

What has not yet been made completely clear is what circumstances or behaviour will constitute significant influence or control.  Draft guidance from the Secretary of State says that, for example, a person has “control” of a company or of the activities of a trust or firm if they have the power to direct its policies and activities and a person exercises “significant influence” if he can ensure that the company or trust adopts those policies or activities which are desired by the holder of the significant influence.  The “control” or “significant influence” need not be directed towards the financial and operating policies of the company and does not have to be exercised by a person with a view to gaining economic benefits from the policies or activities of the company.

There will no doubt be more commentary available on the question of what circumstances or behaviour will constitute significant influence or control as the practice of holding PSC registers develops.

What information must the PSC Register Contain?

There is a duty on companies to investigate, update and obtain information in relation to their PSC Registers. There is also a duty on potential PSC’s to provide information to the company.

Once identified, certain information must be recorded, including:

• in the case of an individual, his name, service address, country or state of usual residence, nationality, date of birth and usual residential address.  Usual residential addresses are protected and won’t be placed on any public register;
• the date on which a person became a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity and the nature of his or its control.

The government has stated that it intends to issue regulations that require companies to include the following on the PSC Register:

• which one or more of the specified conditions for being a PSC (as set out above) the PSC meets; and
• the level of interest (such as between 25-50%, more than 50% to 75% or 75% or more) that the PSC holds.

This is the approach taken in the draft PSC regulations.

The consequences of failing to comply

A company can impose sanctions if its PSCs do not comply with their disclosure obligations (e.g. loss of voting rights and transfer restrictions). Criminal penalties may also apply to those that breach the rules (e.g the company, its directors, company secretaryand PSCs), including in some circumstances imprisonment.

What action should you take?

The company must obtain and update the necessary information about PSCs both on implementation of the new rules and on an ongoing basis.  This will mean that companies will need to be constantly vigilant for signs of changes in control among their shareholders and take prompt investigatory steps as necessary.  You need to consider and address the following:

• whether your PSC register should be held at your registered office or at Companies House;
• the identity of your current PSCs;
• what checks you should have in place to ensure all PSCs are identified, recorded and contactable, now and in the future.

There is no doubt that these new requirements are onerous and will substantially increase the burden and costs of compliance on UK companies.  However, it is important to keep registers up to date; not only to avoid sanctions, but also from a practical perspective. A prospective buyer of your company or a security provider will insist upon inspecting the register and any inaccuracies or omissions are likely to cause unnecessary delay to the transaction in question.  Ensuring that you have compliant registers now should avoid an increased administrative burden later down the line at what may be a critical time for the business.

Other changes

There are other company compliance changes introduced by the Act and all companies will be affected in some way, as the measures change legal requirements on companies, including what they file with Companies House.   The changes were being phased over a period of 12 months and some of the changes have already been implemented – please see attached Summary of Key Changes for more details.

If you require further guidance on your obligations in relation to the changes in company filing requirements, the PSC Register or wider business administration, please contact any member of the Company Secretarial team of Michelmores or email cosec@michelmores.com.

Since publishing this article the Department for Education has updated their guidance to explain that this grant (which is available to Primary schools creating a new academy chain to help support its development) is now available until 30 April 2016.  

Primary schools creating a new academy chain, known as a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT), will be able to claim a grant in order to help support its development. The Primary Academy Chain Development Grant has been agreed by the Secretary of State in order to provide financial support to more primary schools to build their partnership and encourage the benefits of being part of an academy chain.

The grant is available until 31 March 2016 and is for £75,000, plus up to £5,000 per additional primary school, up to a maximum of £100,000. Only new MATs can claim this grant if they fit either of the eligibility criteria:

• 3 schools creating a new MAT, where the majority are primary schools
• Stand-alone open academies and schools converting into academies can claim if they are setting up a minimum 3 school MAT with at least 2 primaries applying to convert

If groups of two or more primary schools are joining an existing MAT at the same time, the MAT can apply for a grant of £20,000 per primary school (up to a maximum of £80,000).

A Small School Supplement is available for primary schools with less than 210 pupils who are joining a MAT to help meet the expenses associated with the conversion process. Those with 100 pupils or less can apply for £5,000, whilst those with between 100-210 pupils can apply for £2,000.

The grant can be used flexibly, providing that it is used for the establishment and advancement of the MAT as a whole. Within a year of receiving the grant, a case study must be provided for the Department for Education website, and there is a requirement for the MAT to use their experience to help others either through academy sponsorship, for example applying for teaching school status or providing mentoring for another group of primary schools interested in conversion.

Encryption and cybersecurity has been in the news a lot recently, particularly following high profile data breaches from Talk Talk, the NHS and Sony, as well as David Cameron’s statement last year that terrorists should have no safe space to communicate online.

The law has a strange relationship with encryption. UK regulators criticise companies where they have suffered a data breach and failed to encrypt their customer data, but this approach doesn’t exactly coalesce with the political rhetoric around government access to communications (encryption being a significant barrier to this access) or the current plans contained in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.

The proliferation of encryption

Encryption has never been something used only by organisations to protect their customer data and those looking to cause trouble. It is used, and protects us, almost every time we make a purchase over the internet or check our bank balance online. Some websites, such as Facebook, now use encrypted browsing by default. It is also now more common than ever for individuals to encrypt their own internet traffic, hiding their activities from their internet service provider and potentially law enforcement agencies, via Virtual Private Networks and other services (all of which can be purchased using anonymous, digital currencies).

Despite this, perhaps encryption doesn’t go far enough.

The recent surge in the “internet of things” (think wearable technology and so-called smart homes), drones and self-driving cars also present a challenge for encryption. Consumer drone manufacturers have been criticised for failing to implement adequate encryption methods, enabling the drone to be controlled by unknown individuals and potentially causing harm to anyone in the immediate area. Worryingly, similar criticism has also been levied at military drones. This is not the end of the story, however, as recent developments in self-driving cars also presents a problem – what if the controls were hackable? Reports are already surfacing that the systems used by self-driving cars to navigate can be confused by a properly configured £20 micro-computer, and encryption will no doubt form part of the toolkit used to secure the systems in emerging technologies such as self-driving cars and delivery drones.

The UK regulator’s position

The Information Commissioner’s Office, the body responsible for the enforcement of data protection legislation in the UK, takes a dim view when it transpires that organisations have lost unencrypted data. Where hackers, or opportunists who steal a civil servant’s laptop on the train, for example, acquire data which is encrypted, the information received is unintelligible unless the decryption “key” can be worked out or otherwise obtained. There appear to be no cases in which the theft of encrypted data ultimately resulted in the corresponding decrypted data being made available online (if you are aware of any examples, please comment below or contact me).

Such is the power of encryption that the ICO advises data controllers that when hackers gain access to encrypted data, they do not need to tell their customers that a breach has taken place. Encryption is also something which can be implemented at relatively low cost and, given the protection it offers, it is understandable that the failure to encrypt customer data is seen as an aggravating factor by the ICO when determining any appropriate sanction on the organisation which suffered the data breach.

A change in the market

For encryption to be useful, individuals and organisations ultimately have to be able to decrypt, or make use of, the encrypted information. Generally speaking, “keys” are used to decrypt information, and much of the recent controversy focusses on a shift in the technology market around who holds these all-important keys.

With this in mind, one area of particular interest is the recent shift in the role encryption plays in online messaging. Previously, sending an online message (for example via WhatsApp) did not involve any kind of encryption, or if it did, the message operator would hold the keys to the encrypted messages. This potentially enabled the messaging operator, government security agencies and others connected to the same wireless network as you to intercept and eavesdrop on your messages.

From late 2014, however, WhatsApp implemented “end-to-end” encryption. This means that all messages sent over WhatsApp are now encrypted, and crucially, only the sender and receiver hold the necessary keys to decrypt the message. The result is the transmission of an unintelligible mess over the internet until it reaches the App on your smartphone, at which point its conversion into a message (possibly also with an accompanying emoji, if you’re lucky) appears on your screen.

WhatsApp is not the only messaging provider implementing this kind of encryption and this approach can, in my view, now be described as a growing trend across the consumer technology market.

Why does this matter?

The shift towards end-to-end encryption matters because it makes it significantly more difficult for messages to be intercepted by anyone, including the organisation providing the messaging service (unless that organisation manages the keys centrally) and government security agencies. Many messaging service providers no longer have the keys to decrypt individuals’ messages, and essentially now provide a platform for the transmission of secure, encrypted data. It seems then, that this shift in the technology market has precipitated vague government statements to the effect that encryption should be banned (which statements were subsequently retracted, and we are now left with the less clear claim that there should be ‘no safe place’ for terrorists).

This discussion is all well and good – but more clarity is needed around exactly what technical measures we can expect to be implemented in order to achieve this ‘no safe place’ for terrorists. The government seems particularly aggrieved at the recent trend towards end-to-end encryption in which only the users hold the keys, but this represents a natural evolution in data security. If it is actually the case that the correct balance in the politician’s views is for communications operators to ‘hold the keys’, and in doing so erode personal privacy to an extent, they should be bold enough to say so.

The Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) applies to all medium / large UK businesses and obliges them to conduct periodic energy efficiency audits.

The qualifying criteria are involved, but in essence any business with more than 250 employees or with turnover in excess of £39M p.a. and a balance sheet of more than £33.5M is caught. It is estimated that some 10,000 businesses are within scope.

The audit must be carried out at least every four years, be approved by a qualified ‘Lead Assessor’, be signed off by a board director and be notified to the Environment Agency (which is maintaining a register for this purpose).

Although ESOS is described as a “Scheme” there is no obligation to actually implement any energy saving measures identified and no dedicated financial assistance or incentives are offered. However, Michelmores is aware that at least one bank has sought to plug this gap by offering finance and creating a ‘panel’ of energy performance contractors who will undertake the relevant works on a percentage fee linked to the savings achieved.

The deadline for notifying the EA of the first round of audits is rapidly looming, being 5 December 2015. In light of limited awareness among the business community, and a lack of availability among Lead Assessors at this time, the EA has recently issued guidance indicating that it will not normally take enforcement action in relation to late notifications provided notification is made by 29 January 2016. A further grace period has been announced for businesses which are seeking to gain the relevant energy efficiency best practice certification, ISO 50001, until 30 June 2016. ISO 50001 status exempts the holder from ESOS.

The penalties for failing to notify in time include a fixed civil fine of up to £5,000 plus a daily penalty of £500 for up to 80 days, so the total fine could amount to £45,000. Failure to carry out an audit carries a fixed penalty of up to £50,000, with a daily penalty of £500 for up to 80 days. There are also ‘naming and shaming’ provisions.

Consultation

The Government has recently consulted on a review of the overall package of business energy tax, reporting and incentives (including ESOS). The aim is to simplify the various overlapping measures currently in place, to reduce the administrative compliance burden on business and to increase productivity.

The consultation, Reforming the Business Energy Efficiency Tax Landscape, ran until 9 November 2015. The key proposals are as follows:

• Reporting – Replacement of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) and the Green House Gas listed-company reporting requirement with enhanced reporting within ESOS.
• Tax – Replacement of the CRC and Climate Change Levy (CCL) with an enhanced version of CCL.
• Incentives – No clear proposal is made; the Government expresses itself open to suggestions provided they are tax-neutral.

It is tempting to see the consultation (and the parallel consultation on the Feed in Tariff) as part of a re-orientation of Government strategy away from subsidising renewable generation and toward promoting cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

The Department of Energy & Climate Change indicate that they are still considering responses to their consultation. Meanwhile, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is seeking separate evidence through a research project. Its remit includes Energy Performance Certificates and is due to report at the end of March 2016. So we may need to wait for the 2016 Budget or beyond for further details. In the meantime, businesses must not ignore their ESOS obligations.

Further information:

A Guide to implementing Energy Savings Opportunities
Environment Agency ESOS Guidance
Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1643)
Consultation, Reforming the Business Energy Efficiency Tax Landscape, HM Treasury / DECC

For more information please contact Ian Holyoak on 01392 687682 or ian.holyoak@michelmores.com or Tom Brearley on 01392 687554 or tom.brearley@michelmores.com

This article was first published in Solicitors Journal on 29 September 2015 and is reproduced by kind permission

Should women feel restrained from taking a stand against sexism by the fear of being labelled a ‘troublemaker’, asks Pippa Allsop

Having received a message on LinkedIn – the supposedly professional networking site – which complimented human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman solely on her ‘stunning’ profile picture, and which ignored any recognition of her legal proficiency, Proudman posted the initial message and her scathing response on her Twitter, along with the caption, ‘How many women [on LinkedIn] are contacted re physical appearance rather than prof skills?’

A bold and inspirational move – had it not been for the fact that the post was not anonymised and, as a result, has now led to considerable backlash professionally, and I suspect also personally, for them both.

Surely every professional, male and female, takes pride in their appearance. Who, realistically, picks their most hideous picture for a professional profile? The problem is that it is women whose intellectual attributes are side-lined by their aesthetic ones – something which is hardly ever the case for men.

Would such comments be viewed as so wildly inappropriate, had they been sent via another social media medium, such as Facebook or Twitter? I think not. But then why is it acceptable to objectify women at all, as opposed to just professional women in a professional setting? As someone who has been unprofessionally approached on LinkedIn myself, I found myself wondering, what on earth do these people think LinkedIn profiles are for?

My personal summary does not boast my romantic status or how I enjoy long walks in the park, it lists my professional skill set. I have a well-presented profile picture because I want to create the best possible first impression and not (unbelievably) in a bid to attract prospective dates. This, for me, is the issue.

There are some men – by no means all, but some – who do not appreciate that their comments not only devalue women, but also women’s opinions of men.

Nevertheless, some men feel it is acceptable to objectify women to their faces. This is why I believe that calling people out on such behaviour is entirely right. Proudman’s reaction was strong, and one I can wholly sympathise with. However, this strength has undoubtedly been undermined by the ‘anonymity element’, and plays directly into the hands of those who would dismiss feminist stands as overreactions or political correctness gone mad. I do not believe that militant feminism serves to help the cause, and I fear examples such as this one actually perpetuate and exacerbate another message: don’t say it to their faces.

The backlash against Proudman (which included a senior male partner publicly stating that she had ‘blacklisted’ herself from receiving work from him) appears to reaffirm that women who take a stand against sexism are widely viewed as being an inconvenience.

A very pertinent question is whether it is right that women should feel restrained in the way they take a stand against sexism, for fear of being dubbed a ‘troublemaker’. It is not a straightforward question. It is true, though, that the way in which you express your viewpoint can easily affect its validity and, therefore, it is imperative to make your point in such a way that it does not leave scope for criticism.

A US judge has “strongly recommended” that a group of luxury goods makers, including Yves Saint Laurent and Gucci continue with attempts to mediate the group claim against China’s largest e-commerce entity, Alibaba Group Holding (“Alibaba”). The claim relates to the sale of counterfeit goods by Alibaba worldwide.

The claim was filed at Manhattan Federal Court in May and alleges that Alibaba was aware of counterfeit goods being offered for sale on its websites and had conspired to manufacture, offer for sale and traffic such goods, under the claimant’s trade marked names, without the permission of the claimants.

Alibaba has been the subject of numerous complaints from business worldwide in relation to counterfeit goods. Prior to entering the US online market in September 2014, Alibaba removed 90 million listings which it was alleged had infringed intellectual property rights.

The claimants are seeking damages and an injunction in relation to Alibaba’s alleged illegal business activities and trade mark infringement.

Despite initially offering to mediate, comments by Alibaba’s executive Chairman were published in Forbes magazine two weeks ago which suggested there would be no settlement of the claim. An Alibaba spokesman later explained that this comment was made before the offer of mediation was accepted. However, the claimants wrote to the Court last week and explained they now considered mediation to be a ‘futile exercise’ designed only to ‘force [the] Plaintiffs to expend resources’.  The claimants requested that the obligation upon them to mediate their claim be removed.

The Court recognised that “needless public comments can undermine talks” but despite this “the Court strongly recommends that the parties proceed to mediation”.

The Court’s response appears to follow the position of the English Courts in placing a strong emphasis on the importance of mediation in all cases and setting a high threshold for parties to overcome in order to show that mediation is not worthwhile. It will be interesting to see whether settlement can be reached or if the claim will proceed to Court.

We will keep you updated on the progress of this case.

This article, authored by Andrew Oldland KC and barrister Nicola Canty, from the Firms Marine Regulatory team, has been featured in the November edition of Marine and Maritime Gazette.

The Department for Transport (‘DfT’) is currently inviting a second round of applications from harbour authorities for any harbour in England and non-fishery harbours in Wales seeking to be designated with the power to give harbour directions under section 40A of the Harbours Act 1964, as amended by section 5 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013.

A harbour authority has duties to safely manage and efficiently run its harbour. It has particular responsibilities in relation to the safety of vessels and people within the harbour, efficient navigation and the protection of the port environment.

In addition to the powers available to harbour authorities under local legislation, (such as byelaws, special or general directions and, for competent harbour authorities, pilotage directions), a designated harbour authority may use harbour directions to regulate ships within their harbour, or ships entering or leaving their harbour. Harbour directions may relate to the movement, mooring and unmooring, equipment (including nature and use) and the manning of ships.

Why apply?

Before the 1964 Act was amended, the only way in which a harbour authority could be granted the power to make general harbour directions was through a Harbour Revision Order (‘HRO’) (under section 14 of the 1964 Act), or by means of a private bill or local Act. These limited options were viewed by the DfT to be out of date and unnecessarily costly and complex. Therefore the new mechanism was introduced under section 40A of the Harbours Act.

This mechanism is a faster and considerably less costly way for a harbour authority to apply for the power to make harbour directions. The harbour directions power is an additional tool to meet the harbour authority’s statutory duties, and the procedure for making harbour directions is more straightforward than the alternative of making harbour byelaws, which must first be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

Review of powers

The letter of application will need to include an explanation of why a particular harbour authority considers the power to make harbour directions is needed. From a practical standpoint, it may be necessary for a harbour authority to undertake a review of its local legislation to evaluate existing statutory powers to ensure that they are still relevant to the safe operation of the harbour. The Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) recommends that additional powers should be sought by a harbour authority if a risk assessment concludes that this would be advisable.

If the applicant harbour authority has existing powers of general direction which overlap with the proposed harbour direction powers to be conferred under section 40A of the Harbours Act 1964, the existing powers of general direction would need to be repealed. Therefore an applicant harbour authority is required to provide details of any provision in a Local Act which would need to be amended or repealed that would otherwise be inconsistent with the power being applied for or unnecessary as a result of the power (section 40A(7) of the Harbours Act 1964 permits the Secretary of State to include such amendments or repeals in a Designation Order).

In addition, copies of relevant Local Acts and Orders should be provided with the application. In particular, relevant provisions containing descriptions of the harbour limits should be included.

Consultation

An informal consultation should be conducted with harbour users to address the suitability of the applicant harbour authority making the application, in addition to the powers that would be covered. The outcome of this informal consultation should also be included in the application.

The DfT also requires a list of any existing or proposed Port User Group (PUG), in addition to other relevant local and regional organisations to be contacted in the DfT’s formal 4-week public consultation. The DfT consultation would address the consultees’ views on the suitability of applicant harbour authorities (whether it is a fit and proper Body to be designated with the power to give harbour directions) and the suitability of the proposed PUG arrangements at the harbour, with any further additional comments invited.

Applications

Michelmores has assisted in drafting successful applications in the first round of applications for harbour authorities. The timetable for the second round of applications is set out on the DfT’s website, with expressions of interest invited by the end of January 2016 and applications proper by the end of March 2016.

Background:

The Property Protocols website, a source of high-quality, free professional advice covering various aspects of the property industry, recently published a protocol to deal with Applications for Consent to Assign or Sublet.  The document is succinct and practical, providing a simple framework for the process of obtaining Landlord’s consent.  Consent to assign and sublet is necessary in the vast majority of leases and the protocol aims to provide a clear process for both parties to follow, complete with timescales and checklists.

Uses:

The protocol sets out to clarify an area that is otherwise only bounded by the landlord’s ‘reasonableness’ – which itself would ultimately be for a Court to decide- but long before that point there needs to be a sense of direction and clarity for both parties if the assignment or subletting is to proceed smoothly.  The protocol therefore sets out some check-list style points such as the information the tenant is to provide at the outset, what triggers the need for superior landlord’s consent and the information the landlord should cover in replying to the application.  By the author’s admission, the protocol is not exhaustive, but as it is an unenforceable, voluntary procedure it is not designed to be exhaustive; more informative.

In terms of remedies should the process go wrong, the protocol suggests Alternative Dispute Resolution over litigation and proposes a number of ways this might be carried out, including some useful starting points for those looking for a mediator.

It is possible that those most likely to agree to follow the protocol are those least likely to run into difficulties, but having a clear timetable from the outset cannot hinder a transaction.  Should one party not wish to follow the protocol there is still no reason why the other couldn’t use it for guidance.

Consent to assign and sublet is necessary in the vast majority of leases, the Property Protocols website, a source of high-quality, free professional advice covering various aspects of the property industry, recently published a protocol to deal with Applications for Consent to Assign or Sublet and this article has summarised the key points for tenants as a checklist.

Tenant’s Checklists:

For any consent application to run smoothly you’re best to:

• Check the terms of your lease at the very start – there may be wording about how to apply for consent, and you will have to act in accordance with this.
• There will almost certainly be a section about ‘service of notices’ which will supply the correct address or contact to send such an application to.  Don’t assume that you will know who needs to see it, the lease may say different!
• Provide the landlord with necessary supporting information in one package. This will help prevent confusion and miscommunication which can cause ill-feeling on both sides.
• If the application is urgent for any reason, let the landlord know the reason (if you can), together with a suitable timescale from the outset. Leases will not usually specify a response time and if the matter is really pressing, clear communication of this is important.

Are you assigning your lease? If so:

Make sure that your landlord has the relevant information about the prospective assignee by providing them with:

• a description of the assignee’s business, their company number and registered office.
• bank/accountant’s references for the assignee if possible.
• the last three year’s accounts (in the absence of these a business plan with profit forecasts can serve). This is to demonstrate that your potential assignee is a ‘good covenant’ i.e. able to meet the costs of occupying the property.
• if a guarantor is proposed, their company details and information on their financial soundness.
• Provide a solicitor’s undertaking to meet the landlord’s (reasonable) legal and professional costs. Providing this with the application reassures the landlord that their costs will be recovered.

Are you subletting?

• The financial check and description of business points mentioned above in relation to assignment also apply here: the landlord will want to know who may be occupying.
• You or your solicitor should prepare a draft sublease, or at least an outline of its terms, particularly those points covering how the subtenant can share or, in turn, sub-let the property.

https://www.michelmores.com/real-estate-insight/protocol-application-consent-assign-and-sublet/

Banks have already ‘paid the price’ for market manipulation in so far as they have paid billions of fines to regulators in pounds sterling and US dollars. However, none of those fines has made its way back to customers. Jonathan Kitchin, our resident expert on the crossover between court action and compliance, sifts through the latest tales of skulduggery.

http://www.michelmores.com/sites/default/files/Compliance-Matters-201015.pdf 

Speaking to the Education team, Headteacher, Jarlath O’Brien gives us an insight into his life at Carwarden House Community School.

Your current title / role

Headteacher of Carwarden House Community School

Brief career background

I was variously a quantity surveyor, an organic chemist, an auditor, a labourer, a postman and a warehouseman before reluctantly becoming a teacher. Since then I have worked in a comprehensive school, an independent selective school and three special schools. I write regularly for the Times Educational Supplement and my first book, on children with learning difficulties, is due to be published in 2016.

What does a typical working day look like?

I get to school for about 7.30am where I, our deputy headteacher, school business manager, our site manager and my PA will work through the issues to be resolved, such as staff absence or a frog that’s been liquidised in the swimming pool filter, so that the day can run smoothly for our staff and students. Staff briefing follows that every morning as we recognise that poor communication kills organisations. It’s time then to welcome the students and I, along with the other senior leaders, are visible around the school as we firmly believe that the start of the day sets the tone for the rest of it. I’ll spend some of the rest of the day in meetings, on or off-site, but will do break and lunch duty at every opportunity as I can talk to most of the students in that time. I will also walk around the school during lessons once a day, often in the middle of doing some really dull paperwork. Bus duty ensures the students leave school safely. Getting home for dinner, bath, story and bed with my children is a non-negotiable which means that I then start work again once they’re asleep.

What did you have for dinner last night?

Pizza and salad.

What was the last piece of music you listened to?

The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room by Flight of the Conchords

What was your favourite and most hated subject when you were at school?

Favourite = PE, English, maths. Most hated = art, music, DT, history, geography. I disliked most of what I studied at school.

What is the best thing about your job?

Being a small part of an incredible team of people that commits to never giving up on children that others have written off.

If you could change one thing about the current education system what would it be?

I would abolish the Ofsted grade of Outstanding. It has become a goal in itself for misguided school leaders and there is strong evidence that it is harder to achieve for mainstream schools if your intake has low prior attainment. There is a clear need to distinguish between schools requiring special measures or a notice to improve, but parents just need to be reassured that their child’s school is good enough. It would also make redundant the parasitic consultants offering to carry out crass Mocksted inspections or turn you into an outstanding teacher if you spend one day in an airless hotel conference centre with them after parting with £300.