Sector Focus


Legal


Sponsored by: Thursfields Solicitors


Homeworking is here to stay


‘Pet-nups’ on the rise among divorcing couples


Divorce lawyers dealing with relationship breakdowns say that there has been a huge rise in the use of ‘pet-nups’. The ‘pet-nups’ are being used by


warring couples to resolve pet ownership when they break up with each other. Divorce lawyers at firm Clarke


By Helena Morrissey, head of employment law


Working at home has become the ‘norm’ for many of us. While some people struggle with the isolation and the lack of office banter, others love logging on to work in their pyjamas and enjoying the demise of the daily commute. While homeworking may


have been viewed with suspicion by some employers pre-Covid, it is clear that it does generally work pretty well. It is therefore likely that when restrictions are lifted employers will face a flurry of flexible working requests from people wishing to remain working at home. In the pre-Covid days, it was


fairly easy for employers to reject such applications simply by relying on one of eight ‘permitted’ reasons, including impact on quality or performance, cost burden and inability to meet customer demand. However, it could be much


more difficult to turn down such requests in the future if the arrangements have worked well in recent months. If you want your employees to return to the workplace, you need to start communicating this to people now. You should also give some proper thought as to the reasons why you want staff to return to the office. If you’re really struggling to find a legitimate reason to say ‘no’, then perhaps your answer should be ‘yes’. Also think about updating your flexible working policy. One thing is for sure – flexible working in one form or another is here stay.


For further information please contact Helena Morrissey, head of employment law hmorrissey@thursfields.co.uk 0121 726 8781 Thursfields Solicitors main line: 0345 20 73 72 8


60 CHAMBERLINK March 2021


Willmott, which is headquartered in Birmingham, say they are increasingly advising on issues relating to who will keep the family pet, in the same way they would advise on arrangements for a child.


‘For the average family pet there is no legal argument to make’


However, Laura Bond, a family


law specialist at the firm, said that whilst owners may consider their pets as a family member, the courts in England and Wales do not. She said: “The


ownership of a family pet can be one of the most emotive and distressing issues to resolve for separating couples. “The current law in


England and Wales provides that a pet is a ‘chattel’ in the same way as a TV, sofa or painting. It is therefore simply an asset to be distributed in the same manner as other material possessions. “There are exceptions in divorce


cases for very high value animals (e.g. a race horse or champion show animal), or if a pet is directly linked to other financial considerations, for example where the family income derives largely from breeding or showing animals. However, for the average family pet


Cat fight: ‘Pet-nups’ are becoming increasingly fashionable. Below: Laura Bond


there is no legal argument to make about the animal’s welfare or needs, and the court may be reluctant to get


involved in disputes about pet ownership.


“It is possible that this will


change in the future and the English courts will start to adopt a more welfare-based test, but until that time pet owners may be surprised and disappointed to discover the reality of the position.” Ms Bond has noticed a growing


trend for a written agreement or ‘pet-nup’ about the pet and what should happen to it in the event of a separation, which can be entered into either before or during the marriage or relationship.


The terms of the ‘pet-nup’ can


deal with ownership of the animal and what the arrangements will be in terms of where it lives and what access the other person will have to the pet should the relationship end. It can also deal with financial considerations such as how all related costs will be funded. If there is written indication of


the parties’ intentions in relation to these matters it could be highly persuasive – or even conclusive – evidence if there is a future dispute. Ms Bond said: “Given the


importance of pets to their owners, the concept of a written agreement seems like a good idea. “Pet owners are becoming


increasingly aware of the potential problems and are taking steps to try to alleviate any future arguments about their pets/”


Gateley advise on deal down under


Law firm Gateley has advised Aussie software business Elmo on its buyout of Webexpenses, which is an expense management outfit based in Oxfordshire. Elmo is based in New South Wales, and say that


buying Webexpenses will ‘provide them with complementary technology, allowing them to cross- sell to a larger customer base and accelerate their mid-market expansion in the UK’. Webexpenses has a large and growing customer


base, and operates in the UK and Australia. Steven Raize, corporate partner at Gateley Legal,


said: “We were really pleased to act for Elmo for the second time in six months, on a major acquisition. “We also advised them in October 2020 on their acquisition of Breathe, a leading HR tech company. It


is an exciting time for Elmo and we are proud to be a part of their journey.” Elmo CEO and co-founder Danny Lessem said: “Our


acquisition of Webexpenses is a significant step in Elmo’s growth strategy and will highly complement our existing service offering. “Elmo’s market opportunity has increased significantly this year, and the addition of Webexpenses to our portfolio will strengthen our position even further.” Gateley Legal has a team of more 70 corporate


lawyers nationally, who advise private and public companies, owner-managed businesses and entrepreneurs on a wide range of corporate matters.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72