Month: June 2017

Barrister’s wardrobe malfunction hits the headlines

Over the weekend, Whitestone Chambers newest tenant, Matthew Gillett, went viral on Twitter and made it onto the sport’s pages of the BBC website following a sartorial slip. Matthew is a Bristol City fan and season ticket holder. He pre-ordered the away shirt for the forthcoming 2017/18 season and when it arrived, all looked to be in order. However, after having worn it for a marathon training run…

Over the weekend, Whitestone Chambers newest tenant, Matthew Gillett, went viral on Twitter and made it onto the sport’s pages of the BBC website following a sartorial slip.

Matthew is a Bristol City fan and season ticket holder. He pre-ordered the away shirt for the forthcoming 2017/18 season and when it arrived, all looked to be in order. However, after having worn it for a marathon training run, he discovered that the label with the washing instructions was emblazoned with the Oxford United badge.

Matthew tweeted Bristol City FC to enquire whether this was an isolated or a more widespread problem. After being picked up by the supporters’ club, the tweet soon went viral (https://twitter.com/MTG1897/status/878584442603929600).

The story was picked up first by Bristol’s leading paper, the Bristol Post, and then covered by the BBC Sport website, on what Chambers presumes was a slow news day during the close season (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40398185).

The CEO of Bristol Sport (the company behind the football club and all other sports teams in Bristol), Andrew Billingham, announced there would be a full investigation into this matter, apologised for the isolated incident and offered Matthew a replacement shirt. This offer was accepted and the case is now closed.

Moving forwards, Chambers hopes Matthew enjoys his replacement lurid purple shirt at football matches or while training for his next marathon, but refrains from wearing it while working in Chambers.

To see Matthew’s LinkedIn page, please visit https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-gillett-a3462b101/.

In-Flight WiFi: How Gogo achieved its dominance

In-Flight WiFi: How Gogo achieved its dominance The in-flight WiFi provider ‘Gogo’ has a reputation for poor speed and connectivity, with travelers frequently complaining of the system’s slow speed compared to its price (costing up to $60). However, with Gogo possessing 80% of the market share the consumer often has no choice but to choose it as their in-flight WiFi provid…

The in-flight WiFi provider ‘Gogo’ has a reputation for poor speed and connectivity, with travelers frequently complaining of the system’s slow speed compared to its price (costing up to $60). However, with Gogo possessing 80% of the market share the consumer often has no choice but to choose it as their in-flight WiFi provider. How did Gogo achieve such a dominant market position?

Part of the answer is that Gogo got there first. As early as the 1990s, Boeing built a satellite network called Connexion in order to provide internet access on planes. However unfortunately for Boeing, the September 11th attack halted all progress in this sector for several years. Gogo launched its own system at around the time personal electronic devices became popular, spending nearly $1 billion on infrastructure. The new company developed the latest onboard equipment and a vast network of transmission towers across North America. Just a year later, the iPhone arrived, bringing with it a vastly greater demand for onboard WiFi.

By 2008 internet access had become perceived as a basic necessity for business travelers, and airline companies turned to the only established WiFi operator in the market. The inelasticity of the new demand meant that the quality or speed of the WiFi weren’t important to secure market share: airlines had to be able to offer the service to match their competitors and Gogo was the only provider with sufficient infrastructure to provide the service.

Gogo exploited its advantage by tying airlines into long-term exclusive contracts. American Airlines was the first to sign up, followed by Delta, United, Virgin America, Alaska Air, and Air Canada. The list continued to grow, and today more than 2,000 commercial aircraft use Gogo’s services. In the last few years, Gogo has increased its fees and decreased its data speeds, making its WiFi service less popular with consumers than ever before. Nonetheless, thanks to Gogo’s long-term contracts neither of its two main competitors have been able to significantly challenge despite offering faster connections and lower prices.

These contracts also involve a “hardware lock-in”. That means that Gogo’s equipment is proprietary; the servers, antennas and other hardware will only work for Gogo’s service. Airlines who have already signed contracts with Gogo would find it very expensive and time-consuming to switch to a different provider since this would involve replacing all of the associated hardware. Apart from the obvious installation and hardware costs, installing alternative WiFi equipment means aircraft downtime, during which the aircraft are out of service and making a loss for their airline.

Additionally, there is a lack of sufficient competition to challenge Gogo’s place in the market. There aren’t enough commercial jets in the world to attract the level of innovators that are needed to make the market more open and fair. The industry simply isn’t attractive enough to developers. Although ViaSat has now signed a 10-aircraft deal with Virgin America for their service to Hawaii, the future still seems to be Gogo-dominated for now.

What’s needed is innovation and an end to proprietary equipment to really open up the market place, but there is no sign of any such change on the horizon.

RULE 44. 11 – COURT’S POWERS IN RELATION TO MISCONDUCT:

Part 44 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 (SI 2013/262) was re-enacted on 1st April 2013 and concerns the court’s powers in relation to misconduct. incur Where a party (a) fails to comply with a court rule in assessment or summary proceedings, or (b) acts unreasonably or improperly before or during proceedings the court may disallow all or part of the costs which are being assessed or order the party at fault or that party’s legal representative to pay costs which that party or legal representative has caused any other party to incur.

The misconduct extends to the legal representative of a party as well as to the party personally and includes both summary assessment and detailed assessment proceedings and refers to any failure to comply with the provisions of Part 47 and any direction, rule, practice direction or court order.

Part 44 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 (SI 2013/262) was re-enacted on 1st April 2013 and concerns the court’s powers in relation to misconduct. incur Where a party (a) fails to comply with a court rule in assessment or summary proceedings, or (b) acts unreasonably or improperly before or during proceedings the court may disallow all or part of the costs which are being assessed or order the party at fault or that party’s legal representative to pay costs which that party or legal representative has caused any other party to incur. The misconduct extends to the legal representative of a party as well as to the party personally and includes both summary assessment and detailed assessment proceedings and refers to any failure to comply with the provisions of Part 47 and any direction, rule, practice direction or court order.

A costs judge may investigate or make orders of unreasonable or improper conduct by a party or a legal representative. A legal representative who has been found to have acted unreasonably or improperly may be ordered personally to pay costs which another party has incurred. This power is in addition to the court’s power to make wasted costs orders in accordance with s.51(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (Gamboa-Garzon v Langer [2006] EWCA Civ 1246).

By 2008 internet access had become perceived as a basic necessity for business travelers, and airline companies turned to the only established WiFi operator in the market. The inelasticity of the new demand meant that the quality or speed of the WiFi weren’t important to secure market share: airlines had to be able to offer the service to match their competitors and Gogo was the only provider with sufficient infrastructure to provide the service.

Where the court makes an order against a party who is legally represented but not present at the hearing, that party’s solicitor must notify their client in writing within seven days of receipt of notice of the order. For the procedure for wasted costs orders, see CPR 46.8.

Part 44.11.2 concerns delays in proceedings. The court has a discretion to decide whether imposing the sanction of disallowance of costs is proportionate to the delay and/or failure to comply with the relevant rule or practice direction.

(Botham v Khan [2004] EWHC 2602).

Section 44.11.3 concerns the solicitor and counsel relationship. In Davy-Chiesman v Davy-Chiesman [1984] 1 All E.R. 311 the claimant applied for an inappropriate form of relief on the advice of counsel. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant’s solicitor was not relieved from responsibility by the fact that he had instructed counsel. Solicitors also have the obligation to withdraw instructions from an incompetent counsel (Re A (A Minor) [1998] Fam Law. 339). However in certain situations a solicitor may be justified in relying upon counsel’s advice (Swedac Ltd v Magnet & Southern plc [1990] F.S.R 89), for instance if a solicitor has no experience in the area concerned (R. v Luton Family Proceedings Court Justices, Ex p. R. (1998) 4 C.L. 51).

Counsel is under a duty to reassess any advice in the light of further information to avoid a wasted costs order. (C v C (Wasted Costs Order) [1994] 2 F.L.R 34)

Counsel should not wholly rely on instructing solicitors to notify them of the dates and times of their cases (Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order) (No. 4 of 1992), The Times, 15 March 1994, CA (Criminal Division)); and see Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order) (No. 4 of 1993), The Times, 21 April 1993, CA (Criminal Division)).

Where the conduct of both the barrister and the solicitor in a case are the subject of criticism, any investigation of their professional conduct will be conducted by a joint tribunal (Vowles v Vowles, The Times, 4 October 1990).