Hairdresser Playing Dentist. The Consequences

General Dental Council v Jamie Farebrother (18th January 2017 Westminster Magistrates Court)

On 18th January 2017, a matter was brought to the Westminster Magistrates Court by the General Dental Council (GDC) concerning teeth-whitening being unlawfully performed by an unqualified person, namely Ms Jamie Farebrother (Defendant) at her beauty salon.

Background

On 6th April 2016, Miss Cullan attended the Defendant’s beauty salon to have her teeth whitened. Whilst carrying out the treatment Miss Cullan began to feel severe discomfort leaving Miss Cullan’s gums inflamed, increasing the sensitivity in her teeth and leaving her in severe discomfort for the next 7 days.

The incident was reported to the GDC, who had already received a separate complaint over the Defendant’s activities. The GDC pointed out that a separate complaint was sent to them informing them of Ms Farebrother’s practices of teeth-whitening and on 13th April 2014, the GDC had sent out a letter informing Ms Farebrother that it was a criminal offence to perform this treatment without being qualified.

At the hearing, the GDC argued that under section 38 of the Dentistry Act 1984, only registered dentists and registered dental care professionals could provide dental treatment and as shown in the matter of GDC v Jamous [2013] EWHC 1428, teeth-whitening fell within the definition of dentistry. Click here for more details..

Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: https://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/

Lease or Licence. The Difference. Why it Matters

A lease is a grant of exclusive possession of land or property. A licence is a permission to do something on the licensors’ land or property.

The distinction is important because different legal rights and protections attached to leases and licences.  A document is not simply comprised of the label that is put upon it. The courts look into the terms of the agreement. Therefore, they look at the substance and intentions of the parties in order to analyse the arrangements between them.

In the recent matter of   Watts v Stewart and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1247 the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether, Mrs Watts a resident of an almhouse, was a tenant or licencee.

Mrs Watts had signed a letter of appointment with the charity when she took up residence.  The terms of the agreement referred to the conditions of tenancy. Mrs Watts was served a notice to quit the property This was because of her antisocial behavior.  Legal proceedings were also issued for possession.

The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Watts did not have exclusive possession of the property. This was because she was a beneficiary under a charitable trust. She was therefore not a tenant. Click here for more details..

Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: https://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Interesting Times

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) consolidates existing legislation and powers available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to gather data. The Act has largely been introduced as a counter terrorism measure. However, it may now need to be reconsidered in light of the decision handed down by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Home Office v Watson.

Home Office v Watson was an action for judicial review of the lawfulness of the data retention regime in section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (“DRIPA”). This required telecommunications operator to retain communications data for up to 12 months. The claimants argued that DRIPA and the national regime had to comply with the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy under the ePrivacy Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. How does this connect with the IPA?

The IPA gives authorities wide-ranging surveillance powers to collect data about individual’s activities. For example, authorities can collect internet connection records (ICR) and communications data which must be stored by companies for up to 12 months. Furthermore, authorities can now hack into phones and connect remotely to computers described in the Act as “specific equipment interference”. Click here for more details..

Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: https://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/