No win no fee, the term is actually related with personal injury. The term is also associated with CFA (conditional fee agreement) .It is actually an agreement between the client and the solicitor whereby if the client is able to make a claim he could pay the fees of the solicitor. No win no fee agreement was actually created so as to help that community of people who had limited access to the legal justice. The term no win no fee was actually introduced around mid 90’s. Recent surveys indicate that around 2.5 million people in United Kingdom suffer from injuries caused by the accident. As a result of which most of them lose their employment and suffer both emotionally and physically. According to the law of United Kingdom the liable party should compensate the injured party.
There are circumstances under which a solicitor appeals for a no win no fee agreement. No win no fee agreement is generally applicable in cases of personal injury like asbestos related diseases, accident injuries, medical negligence, public liability and workers compensation. Besides not all personal injury claims can win compensation. An injury claim is possible only if one has suffered pain and suffering and has incurred financial losses. The solicitors generally take up such cases only when the claim could be made. There are many circumstances in which compensation cannot be secured. No win no fee agreement is generally not possible in non-personal injury cases.
A good solicitor generally advises his client and furnishes him the details of the circumstances under which a compensation cannot be won. If it is known that the injury caused is not the fault of someone else then a case cannot be filed because legal action is possible only if there is a fault from the other side. If there are no witnesses or medical evidence to substantiate then no claim could be made. There might also be circumstances where there is literally very little or no proof to make a claim. Under such circumstances a no win no fee agreement stands absurd.
While no win no fee means no fees to the lawyer if one loses the case it is not the same with all cases. In most of the cases where there are very little chances of winning the claim an insurance policy is taken to underwrite the personal injury claim. Hence the insurance company pays the fees of the solicitor. It is the responsibility of the client to make sure that whether or not he is supposed to pay the cost of the policy.
No win no fee agreement though has some shortcomings, is one legal tool to help many people who not only suffer from the injuries sustained in the accident but also suffer from depression and anxiety. Hiring a no win no fee solicitor or accident lawyer is now possible and you need not worry about your finances at all. Filing compensation claims can be done by one and all.
So often we hear about how high the rate of divorce is in both the United Kingdom and the United States. Divorces can be emotional, time consuming, and expensive affairs. More than ever, couples are being encouraged to use mediation services in order to solve their difficulties, in order to avoid all the difficulties of a divorce.
When emotions are running high and couples don’t know how they can possibly make things work anymore, divorce can seem like the only way out. Communication is the key to all good relationships and when communication breaks down, relationships tend to break down too. Mediation services are great because they teach you how to talk to each other about how you’re feeling in an open and honest fashion.
It can be difficult to talk about our feelings, even to those who are closest to us. Having difficult conversations can be uncomfortable, and sometimes we need a helping hand. Despite the fact we are arguing with our partner, we generally don’t like upsetting other people.
Conflicts between loved ones can be particularly difficult to handle because relationships are so steeped in history. Mediation is future focused, so an independent mediator will attempt to move the relationship forwards rather than allowing the couple to dwell on past events. Bringing up old arguments and past mistakes does not resolve anything and is no basis for a healthy relationship.
This is one fundamental way in which mediation and divorce differ. Divorce courts do not accept ‘irreconcilable differences’ as a valid reason for couples wanting to split up. They instead insist that fault is blamed on one of the parties involved. This is perhaps why mediation is becoming such a popular option for arguing couples. Divorce is not as simple as one person being wrong and the other right; it is infinitely more complicated than that.
If children are involved, then mediation could be useful for a couple as well. If talking about your differences doesn’t solve them, it could at least bring some civility to proceedings. If you still decide to divorce then it is best to do so in a civil manner, so the children are not left feeling anymore confused and upset than they need to be. Deciding on how often children are to be seen and who stays with who is another big issue when it comes to divorce, and it is better if this can be settled outside of the divorce courts in order to avoid as much distress as is possible.
Ultimately, divorce sometimes is the only option for some couples. However, it is certainly better to do everything in your power to attempt to reconcile the relationship outside of the court room to begin with.
If you are faced with legal issues, there is no other way of getting out or ahead of them other than getting assistance from someone who knows legal matters best. A lot of solicitors in the United Kingdom proliferate over the country to extend help to people who need to go through due processes. Every solicitor works on varied specialisations, and you should take it upon yourself that the firm of your choice is offering the legal service that you need.
An example of common legal services provided by solicitors is residential conveyance. House transfers can leave you stressed, especially the paperwork. Properties entail legal papers, and whether you are a greenhorn buyer or an experienced property developer, it can be beneficial to seek help from solicitors.
There are a lot of concerns regarding property ownership – but they can possibly work on it for you. Dealing with properties would mean having to deal with land registration, or possible mortgages. You might have queries about boundaries and how much claim you can acquire. These can be answerable by legal counsels who have gained years of experiences in handling legal land titles for different kinds of owners. Moreover, in the case of property developers, assistance can be addressed specifically to the likes of planning agreements, conditional contracts, pound acquisitions and unilateral undertakings.
Suppose you are planning to invest in a small-scale business. Eventually, if coupled with hard work and perseverance, you may develop into a multinational company. Chances are you need to keep your business on the road and you need a reliable team of law experts to take care of commercial legal matters.
Solicitors give assistance to private or public companies that want to put in effort for their company’s legalities. These people will work closely with you, like they are part of your team, and will work towards achieving the same goal as yours.
In a similar scenario, should you be caught off guard in a corporate crisis, there are groups of lawyers who can help you in difficult decision making to recover your investment and re-align your corporate goals. Solicitors will work as your ally, so that all transactions are marked with legality.
For employers and employees who share a working relationship, legal advice is indispensable. Both parties are covered by employments laws that are very well covered and defined upon contract signing – a proof of mutual agreement. For an employee’s part, solicitors can walk him through employments rights that are owed to him. Employers, on the other hand, can consult for legal advice regarding revisions of new contracts before they are implemented to new workers. Employment policies are dynamic and if an employer seeks legislation of new rules, implementation is possible through a revised contract. However, even in the best of companies, a power struggle between both parties is inevitable.
The line can be therefore drawn if there are rules to set things straight and there are lawyers who can give no-nonsense counsel. Consulting legal solicitors will pave the way for an honest appraisal of the matter, so that you will know where exactly you stand and the other will know where you are coming from.
Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.
A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:
…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.
In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.
The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.
On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.
The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.
Immigration to Canada is a time consuming and stressful process if you don’t know where to start. Of course, there is nothing to stop you applying your own, but an immigration consultant who specializes in Canadian immigration can make the process a lot smoother and less stressful.
Because of Canada’s strict immigration regulations, it is important to get your application right the first time. Immigrating can be a costly experience and in between, extra money you will need to pay out to removal companies, airlines etc the last thing you want to be doing is paying unnecessary administration fees, just to get your immigration application approved.
Feedback has indicated that an estimated 30% of all applicants, as a whole, who lodge their own applications, get it wrong and fail. This can cause confusion and frustration with the process. Many find it hard to get the answers to their specific concerns or questions which, in many cases, cause applicants to change their minds about immigrating altogether.
Applicants can also find the waiting for their Canadian immigration approval difficult too. If you were to hand the application over to an Immigration Consultant specializing in Canadian Immigration, they can avoid any further delays and assist with quick processing, by presenting a correct and complete application on your behalf.
The other hassle of applying for immigration to Canada yourself can be all of the preparation of the paperwork. If you don’t know what to put down or even what class you are eligible for, the paperwork can be somewhat confusing. By using a consultant they can fill in all of the gaps for you; all you have to do is answer the questions they ask and provide the documentation they ask for.
Canada Immigration Consultants also have extensive experience in the industry; it’s what they do day in and day out — they know what works and what doesn’t. If you are considering immigrating to Canada, you should explore your options before you proceed to apply yourself. Remember you want to save time, effort and money! The immigration consultants in India is one of the largest and longest-established, private immigration consulting groups, offering officially recognized specialists in obtaining skills, business, and family permanent residence visas for people choosing immigration to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States of America. You will benefit from their wealth of experience including professional support with residence visa processing, trade’s recognition and official qualification, business migration, re-settlement services and job search.
Sudheer is into Immigration Consultancy, He is updated all the information regarding Canada Immigration, Now he updated Information Regarding Canada Immigration Is Better Option for Immigrants.