Slim Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 That document is not the law, Slim; it's about how to qualify as a lawyer. Different things. Great, then it shouldn't be too much trouble for you to show me the correct document? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The pamphlet is just a careers guidance one. Slim it does not cover who sets and marks the exams or who issues a licence. The Act and Regulations do. I think I am right on the regulations No an English solicitor cannot become a Scots solicitor or advocate without passing additional exams in land law and conveyancing and an English solicitor has to do a period of apprenticeship (6 months) to qualify and practise in Northen (but not Southern ) Ireland. As I am English solicitor ad a solicitor in Southern Ireland and a non practising solicitor in Northern Ireland (not done my six months practical), you can take it I have practical experience in transferring qualifications cross border. I haven't done Scotland yet because of the exam requirement An english solicitor can transfer to IOM with reduced period of training and with reduced exam requirerement, there is a difference, we are solicitors and barristers. In England to have right of audience in Higher Courts, ie to be a solicitor advocate, you have to take a extra exams. Not really all that different The French example is not actually a bad one because under EU rules if you set up as an EU lawyer qualified in one EU country and practising in another then after a number of years and subject to a period of supervision in most cases and maybe a language competency test you can qualify in the host countries las a local awyer and appear, the Civil/Common Law distinctions do not any longer apply. Most EU law is Civil based in its framework, which might be why we interpret it how we do and the french seem much more relaxed, soaferench advocate could come to england and after threre years including one year su[pervisin he could become a solicitor, but he couldn't do it immrdiately Finaly I agree there are a number of jurisdictions which the English legal authorities allow you to transfer qualifications gfrom without exams or training, and vice versa, but nearly all are ones where the degree and initila vocational training are as near as damn it identical andif you have to have been qualified and practising three yeras or so. Others like Aus and NZ have to have a period of supervision I am inj process a of Registering as an EU lawyer with theb barcelona bar and if I improve my Spanish or cataln I could qual;ify and practise there as an abogado in three yeras provided I also was uspervised for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Incidentally, do you guys have any views about the budget? No! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 There has been a recent case where a relative, against his wishes, had to represent an ill person in court. They both ended up getting their houses arrested to pay the other sides bill. All this has yet to be made public but it is quite amazing what goes on in the law courts of the Isle of Man. I find it hard to believe that a person can be forced to defend another. And if he is acting for the other person, he is not a party to the case, so cannot be made to pay costs. S This is fact, the son was made to assist his mother at trial who was not in a fit state to represent herself. The case I belive was against a member of the law who is well known and connected. The other party made it that the mother and son had to find the money to fund the case and within one hour of the case ending and before they had returned home the other party had a court order placed on their houses. This a strange situation, how could the other party get the court order so quick and acted on. Stranger still I believe the courts have put a gagging order on the mother and son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 There has been a recent case where a relative, against his wishes, had to represent an ill person in court. They both ended up getting their houses arrested to pay the other sides bill. All this has yet to be made public but it is quite amazing what goes on in the law courts of the Isle of Man. I find it hard to believe that a person can be forced to defend another. And if he is acting for the other person, he is not a party to the case, so cannot be made to pay costs. S This is fact, the son was made to assist his mother at trial who was not in a fit state to represent herself. The case I belive was against a member of the law who is well known and connected. The other party made it that the mother and son had to find the money to fund the case and within one hour of the case ending and before they had returned home the other party had a court order placed on their houses. This a strange situation, how could the other party get the court order so quick and acted on. Stranger still I believe the courts have put a gagging order on the mother and son. Assisting and representing are different things. And if the son was a party to the case then presumably he would have had to bear a share of the costs (if he lost) whether or not he had assisted his mother. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 There has been a recent case where a relative, against his wishes, had to represent an ill person in court. They both ended up getting their houses arrested to pay the other sides bill. All this has yet to be made public but it is quite amazing what goes on in the law courts of the Isle of Man. I find it hard to believe that a person can be forced to defend another. And if he is acting for the other person, he is not a party to the case, so cannot be made to pay costs. S This is fact, the son was made to assist his mother at trial who was not in a fit state to represent herself. The case I belive was against a member of the law who is well known and connected. The other party made it that the mother and son had to find the money to fund the case and within one hour of the case ending and before they had returned home the other party had a court order placed on their houses. This a strange situation, how could the other party get the court order so quick and acted on. Stranger still I believe the courts have put a gagging order on the mother and son. Assisting and representing are different things. And if the son was a party to the case then presumably he would have had to bear a share of the costs (if he lost) whether or not he had assisted his mother. S He was not party to the case, his mother was trying to stop another person from grabbing her land but was in ill health and the court instructed the son to assist his mother, both were not able to represent themselves so then got tied up in a court battle with a member of the law and got stitched up. The person involved is a contributer to these forums and if he had not been gagged by the courts names would have been published and the full story out. I was a good friend of the late Rolly and witnessed first hand what a powerfull wealthy person can do to a good man. Publishing the case on the forum in my mind would not be the right thing to do and maybe cause harm to the forum and its admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 That document is not the law, Slim; it's about how to qualify as a lawyer. Different things. Great, then it shouldn't be too much trouble for you to show me the correct document? Behold, the great Slim finally accepts defeat and asks Sebrof for enlightenment. Socrates had Plato for a pupil. I get Slim. Thinks: must round up a few more virgins and goats to propitiate the gods. They're obviously not pleased. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyborer Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Behold, the great Slim finally accepts defeat and asks Sebrof for enlightenment. Socrates had Plato for a pupil. I get Slim. Thinks: must round up a few more virgins and goats to propitiate the gods. They're obviously not pleased. S I don't see any post that suggests Slim has admitted defeat. YOU need to get your eyes tested.........................lol,lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Incidentally, do you guys have any views about the budget? Well, a few. 1 I fear the 2.5% growth projection may be optimistic. 2 If it is optimisitic, there is nothing in the kitty. 3 In general, I like the calm, no-fireworks, approach. 4 I like the (albeit small) measures to stimulate the economy. 5 I like job-seekers allowance being made non-taxable. The principle should be extended to all such allowances in my view, otherwise you are just giving with one hand and taking with another. We are obviously very much in the hands of the finance sector, and I think there are some grounds for hope that any decline will be gentle. Not everyone has lost all their money, and they still need somewhere to put it. We are also very vulnerable to Obama and his tax-haven crusade, which I now think is more of a threat than I did previously. I wouldn't object to Mr Bell notching up a few airmiles to schmooze a bit in Washington. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 S. Good to be back on track for a few seconds at least. I agree that the 2.5% growth forecast is key to the budget. If there are signs that it is not being achieved I hope that urgent action will be taken to rein in expense and to increase revenue. At present there doe seem to be room to do that which is a bit of comfort if things go off course. I wonder whether there is a 'black book' with Plans B and C in it? So many governments seem to wait until the proverbial hits the fan before responding to situations. In relation to Obama it is enlightening to see what the US of A did to UBS about Swiss banking confidentiality. A heavy shot across the bows of client confidentiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 S. Good to be back on track for a few seconds at least. I agree that the 2.5% growth forecast is key to the budget. If there are signs that it is not being achieved I hope that urgent action will be taken to rein in expense and to increase revenue. At present there doe seem to be room to do that which is a bit of comfort if things go off course. I wonder whether there is a 'black book' with Plans B and C in it? So many governments seem to wait until the proverbial hits the fan before responding to situations. In relation to Obama it is enlightening to see what the US of A did to UBS about Swiss banking confidentiality. A heavy shot across the bows of client confidentiality. Well, you could say that a few government overspends (providing the spending is local) will help the economy. I was disappointed, but not surprised, that Mr Bell did not ditch the (allegedly) failed tax cap, which could well be losing the island more than it is gaining. It would be good to know which, too. Even if it makes some money, I think it is wrong for the poor to be taxed more heavily than the rich. Basically, it's morally idefensible. We should all resolve to eat out more, and to drink local bitter with the meal. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I was disappointed, but not surprised, that Mr Bell did not ditch the (allegedly) failed tax cap, which could well be losing the island more than it is gaining. It would be good to know which, too. Even if it makes some money, I think it is wrong for the poor to be taxed more heavily than the rich. Basically, it's morally idefensible. We should all resolve to eat out more, and to drink local bitter with the meal. I have to agree with you on that one fella....this was a punt that failed pretty dramatically. Its led to a confusing corporate taxation structure, lost revenue and a lack of influx of the people it was meant to attract. The other spin off from an OECD perspective to eliminate differentiation in tax treatment between residents and non-residents has failed to materialise too. We are still all too quickly referred to as a *cough* tax haven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I was disappointed, but not surprised, that Mr Bell did not ditch the (allegedly) failed tax cap, which could well be losing the island more than it is gaining. It would be good to know which, too. Even if it makes some money, I think it is wrong for the poor to be taxed more heavily than the rich. Basically, it's morally idefensible. I have to agree with you on that one fella....this was a punt that failed pretty dramatically. Its led to a confusing corporate taxation structure, lost revenue and a lack of influx of the people it was meant to attract. The other spin off from an OECD perspective to eliminate differentiation in tax treatment between residents and non-residents has failed to materialise too. We are still all too quickly referred to as a *cough* tax haven. He claimed that the numbers of £100,000 tax cap residents had increased from about 10 to someting like 88. Not sure of the exact figures. He said the tax income from those 88 paid in whole for the £550 lump sum being given to the low paid, again I think he said that went to 10.000 people. Not sure of the figures, have to wait for the Tynwald transcript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have to agree with you on that one fella....this was a punt that failed pretty dramatically. Its led to a confusing corporate taxation structure, lost revenue and a lack of influx of the people it was meant to attract. The other spin off from an OECD perspective to eliminate differentiation in tax treatment between residents and non-residents has failed to materialise too. We are still all too quickly referred to as a *cough* tax haven. The zero rated corp systems buggered up a lot of very small companies too, because the fee's for filing were raised so much. See the q4 banking deposit stats are finally up, and show a rise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 The zero rated corp systems buggered up a lot of very small companies too, because the fee's for filing were raised so much. I have a small company. A company could not probably be much smaller than mine is currently. The zero rated thing seems pretty good to me. It simplifies the stuff I have to think when I would rather being thinking about the actual work. The filing fee is £320ish iirc. I can't imagine that would make a huge dent on the balance sheet of any even vaguely viable company. iirc (from the filing form) property management companies (shared ownership apartment blocks) and non profits are exempt. How do you mean about it buggering up a lot of small companies ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.