People have asked a number of questions relating to the privacy implications of Google Glass because of its potential to gather images, video and other data about almost anything a user can see from its display. Developers have responded by stating that the technology has been designed with social implications in mind. However this does not seem to be enough to reassure a group of US politicians who sent a letter to Google questioning what data the gadget will collect about users and non-users.

The politicians said they were “uncertain” about the privacy protections Google intends to build in to the device. The group also wanted to know how Google would be updating its privacy policies to reflect the capabilities of Google Glass.

Meanwhile here in the UK a survey conducted by the Centre for Creative and Social Technology (CAST) at Goldsmiths, University of London and website hosting company Rackspace found one in five people want to ban Google Glass from sale in the UK  highlighting the British public’s concern over the privacy implications of the device. 61% of the 4,000 people surveyed thought that such devices should be subject to regulation.

This is again an example of how protection of privacy and innovation can clash in today’s rapidly developing tech world. Google Glass is cited by some as the beginning of wearable computing whereas for others it is another grey area that they are just not too sure about………

What are your views on Google Glass? Let us know what you think by contacting John North jdn@royds.com, Claus Anderson cka@royds.com, or Sonia Mohammed smm@royds.com

But tucked away in the last Budget was an interesting proposal.  The Government is to consult on allowing self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs) to invest in empty commercial property that is being converted to residential use.  Under the present rules, SIPPs cannot invest in residential property.

Back in 2006 the Labour Government was planning to allow SIPPs to invest in residential property, but the proposal was dropped at the last minute.  Now the Coalition Government has accepted that the country has a housing problem, 15% of high-street properties are empty, and people want to live in town centres.  It is obvious from a walk round our more established town centres that many of the shops are just converted houses – Chichester is a good example – so converting empty shops to houses again is not as daft as it sounds.

This also ties in with the suggestion that SIPPs should be allowed to invest in buy-to-let properties, most of which are run (as many retired landlords will tell you) as small businesses anyway.

The noble efforts of Mary Portas and others to rescue retail businesses will only scratch the surface.  These efforts will help badly-run, but basically profitable, niche businesses, but will not help the Woolworths or Comets or HMVs.  Pension schemes, on the other hand, are always looking for good, safe investments.  Town-centre housing might be just the thing.

If you have any comments on this blog please contact Roger May on 02075832222 or rdm@royds.com

The Commission had issued a White Paper in February 2012 which would have required UK pension schemes to increase their funding levels by about a third, as it treated UK final-salary schemes as if they were commercial insurance companies. In fact (as all true Britons know) UK final-salary schemes are an entirely different kettle of fish.

The original problem arose because the Commission refers in its Directives to “institutions”. This has been sloppily translated by a UK Parliamentary draftsman as “pension scheme” in the UK legislation. However, if you go back to the Directives themselves, they sometimes use the terms “institution” and “pension scheme” in the same sentence, and under the laws of legal interpretation they therefore cannot be the same thing. From the context you can see that what the Commission meant by “institution” was clearly an insurance company, or perhaps an industry-wide federation.

Fortunately the UK pensions industry raised enough of a stink to make the European Commission think again. The Directive will now be issued, but without any solvency requirement. The Commission says “further technical work on the impact of any solvency requirements” is needed.

I believe that the Commission will finally take the point that UK pension schemes cannot be treated as if they were insurance companies, and will make a specific exception for them. One thing is certain – raising the funding levels of all UK final-salary schemes by a third would kill them all off instantly. The European Commission will not want that on its conscience.

If you have any comments on this blog please contact Roger May on 02075832222 or rdm@royds.com

On 5 December 2005 the Civil Partnership Act 2004 reached the statute book. After that date the intention was that civil partnerships were to be treated, for the great majority of purposes, as equivalent to marriages.

The current equality legislation in this country, the Equality Act 2010, makes sexual orientation a “protected characteristic,” on an equal footing with age, race, religion and disability.  Section 13 of the Act then says : “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”. That seems clear enough to me.

The problem here is tucked away in Schedule 9 to that Act. This provision says that it is not discrimination if a civil partner is prevented from access to a benefit in respect of a period of service before 5 December 2005. You can see a certain sort of logic here – civil partnerships did not exist before December 2005, so pensions for civil partners need not go any further back.

But let us take an example. A pension scheme has two members, G and H. The scheme incorporates a provision giving civil partners benefits only from 5 December 2005 onwards. On the same day in December 2006, when G and H both have 20 years’ pensionable service, G is married and H enters into a civil partnership. G and H both die in December 2013. G’s spouse is entitled to a pension using the whole of G’s pensionable service, 27 years. H’s civil partner, on the other hand, is only entitled to a pension using pensionable service back to December 2005, 8 years. Now is that, or is it not, discrimination because of sexual orientation?

Clearly I am not alone in my views. A meeting of Parliament’s Public Bill Committee on 7th March, discussing the proposed same-sex marriage legislation, stated that broadly two-thirds of schemes had voluntarily adopted the same pension benefits for civil partners as for spouses. However, we have now had definitive guidance on how British Courts and Tribunals are to interpret this point, using a European Court precedent.

A certain Mr Walker retired from Innospec Limited in 2003 on an annual pension of £85,000. He entered into a civil partnership in 2006, but was told by Innospec’s pension scheme that his civil partner would only be entitled to a contracted-out pension of £500 a year. If he had married, the scheme admitted that his wife would be entitled to half his £85,000 pension. But the scheme rules contained a provision limiting a civil partner’s pension to half the pension accrued since 5 December 2005. As Mr Walker had accrued no pension after 2003, no pension was due.  Mr Walker appealed to an Employment Tribunal, putting forward the German Maruko case of 2008.

The Germans have an equivalent to our civil partnership, called a “life partnership”.  Mr Maruko entered into a life partnership and his partner died. When the partner’s employer, a state theatre company, refused to pay Mr Maruko a pension, he claimed unlawful discrimination because of sexual orientation, and the case went up to the European Court.

As the Maruko case clearly had far-reaching implications, the British Government decided to become involved, and made its own submissions. It quoted the preamble to the 2000 Equal Treatment Directive, which appeared to give the British Government the power to decide which pension benefits it gave to civil partners.

The European Court did not agree. It said that member states must comply with European non-discrimination principles, and besides, it said preambles to Directives have no legal effect. Making the point even clearer, it awarded Mr Maruko a full pension.

So the English Employment Tribunal in the Innospec case swallowed hard, and ruled that national legislation should be interpreted so as to be compatible with European Directives. Mr Walker’s civil partner was entitled to the same pension as if he had been a spouse.

The ridiculous thing about this whole matter is that it is, in terms of each particular pension scheme, a very small expense. Scheme actuaries will not have to make vast amounts of provision for civil partners’ pensions (or even same-sex spouses, if the legislation is passed). Most schemes already make an assumption that a certain proportion of members – usually half – will be married, and this assumption will not have to be radically revised.

So if your scheme still has a restriction on civil partners’ pensions, I would advise you to remove it at once, as it is now obvious which way this particular wind is blowing.

If you have any comments on this blog please contact Roger May on 02075832222 or rdm@royds.com

The ITC is a trade panel which has become an increasingly popular venue for patent lawsuits as it has the ability to order import bans which are often more difficult to secure from US district courts. All import bans issued are sent to the President, who has 60 days to review them. If the ban is not overturned during this time it goes into effect.

Samsung had also accused Apple of infringing three other patents however the ITC found that Apple did not infringe these.

Apple also has a complaint filed against Samsung at the ITC accusing Samsung of copying its iPhones and iPads. An ITC judge in that case found that Samsung had violated one patent but not a second one. A final decision is due in August.

It will be interesting to see whether the import ban imposed by the ITC is overturned by Barack Obama in the next 60 days. If not it will mean that there is a ban on all imports and sales for AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G in the US.

If you have any comments on this blog please contact John North, Head of Corporate and Commercial on 020 7583 2222 or jdn@royds.com or Sonia Mohammed smm@royds.com

The Tech City Futures report was published earlier this month. The report which is produced by GfK for TechCityInsider and partners is said to be the the most significant survey into attitudes within Tech City.

So what did the report find in a nutshell?

Shortage of skilled workers

The biggest single challenge identified by the business leaders who took part in the survey was the shortage of skilled workers in the job market. The skills they are referring to here are specialised digital and technology skills with coders and developers (programmers); marketing and PR; business development; web designers and usability specialists pin pointed as being the five most skills in demand. This shortage was also was seen to have a negative growth on businesses with  77% of the business leaders stating that they could grow quicker if they had access to these skills.

Lack of funding and confidence in the economy

Unfortunately only 1 in 7 London tech city businesses stated that they had any confidence in the UK’s current economic situation. This lack of confidence seems to stem from the current tough economic climate which is making sourcing funding a big challenge for these businesses. 33% of the business leaders said that their businesses were hindered by a lack of capital. 78% of the businesses said that they had used some kind of investment and financing in the past. With angel investors, venture capital and borrowing against personal assets being the most popular and traditional bank lending accounting for only 14% of financing.

Government need to take more action

Only 43% of the business leaders thought that the government had been quite or very supportive of tech business. The general feeling seems to be that the government need to do more than just PR and shining a light on the tech cluster.

The report raises important concerns which will need to be addressed in order for Tech City to grow and eventually rival the likes of Silicon Valley. Key players have been identified who will be instrumental in addressing these concerns and ensuring the successful future of Tech City including the government, investors and banks, universities, tech city mentors and large tech firms. 

If you any comments on the report or this blog please contact John North, Head of Corporate and Commercial on 0207583222 or jdn@royds.com or Sonia Mohammed smm@royds.com 

This case is a reminder that confidentiality agreements will be construed in accordance with the same principals as any other agreement.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.

However the aspect of the Tribunal decision which was upheld was the wording of TULR(C)A regarding when the duty to collectively consult arose. The wording in the section states when the employer “is proposing to dismiss” 20 or more employees as redundant. The EAT held that the words should be given their natural meaning and operate on the basis that the word is “proposed” rather than “contemplated”, which would give a different meaning – even though the Collective Redundancies Directive uses the word “contemplated” rather than “proposed”.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.

The employee was duly found to have been unfair dismissed in this case, having sent emails in the names of other employees, one of which wrongly implied that a colleague had committed a criminal offence. The Tribunal found the dismissal to be procedurally unfair and that, because of the Claimant’s conduct, it was not just and equitable to award him either a basic or a compensatory award.

His appeal was dismissed and the EAT set out the following principles for assessing contributory conduct and reduction of award:-

• A reduction of 100% for contributory conduct can be justified even if the employer had procedural failings, provided these did not cause or contribute to the dismissal.

• The basic may be reduced to zero by virtue of the Claimant’s conduct and the accepted approach set out in Devis v Atkins.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.

Shortly before he was dismissed, the Claimant submitted a grievance complaining of bullying and harassment and mentioning the word “discrimination”. This was later clarified as the Claimant effectively being used as a scapegoat but not on the grounds of race or any other protected characteristic. His Employment Tribunal claims, including complaints of harassment, victimisation, and discrimination, were all unsuccessful. The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision to strike out the victimisation claims on the basis that there was no protected act and therefore no victimisation claim because there had never been an assertion that the unfair treatment was on the grounds of either race or any other protected characteristic. This was fatal to the victimisation claim.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.