Legal services are used by ordinary people, making their wills, buying and selling houses. Unfortunately, legal sevices are classified as "Luxury" services.
It is my view that that private individuals, using legal services should not pay VAT at the top rate. I can see the logic in charging large corporations VAT on their legal bills, as they can claim it back.
However, for the ordinary person, it is yet another tax.
1% of all VAT collected in Ireland goes to the EU. Is it not possible to structure the system so that large corporations would pay directly to the bailout fund?
Irish people have been hit hard enough - the pension levy, reduction in child benefit, USC charge, the list goes on.
It was clearly seen in the UK that to increase the VAT rate slowed consumer spending. will that be the overall effect of increasing it here? I hope not.
The High Court has approved an interim settlement of just over one million euro for a 7 year old boy who was injured at birth at a Hospital in Cork.
There is no doubt that such a step would be a last resort for most people. To some, it is the only avenue left where there is no prospect of paying off the many debts facing them.
Until this Act is passed, Irish Bankruptcy law required that you could not apply to come out of Bankruptcy for twelve years.
This meant that all of your assets remained in the ownership of the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy for a full twelve years. You could not apply for a loan for an amount in excessof €360 without disclosing that you are a bankrupt. All of your assets may be sold to pay off your debts. If your assets are not enough to pay your debts, then each creditor is given a certain amount in the pound, eg 50 c for every euro owed. Even then, you remained bankrupt for the full twelve years.
In the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions)Bill, the time is reduced to five years and maybe as low as three years. This still compares badly to a ninety day period which applies in the USA. It is unlikely that this law will come into force until closer to the mid 2012.
Delay in replying to email not a reasons for summary dismissal.
An Insurance official who failed to attend to an email until the day after it was received was summarily dismissed for Gross Misconduct.
It was found by the Employment Appeals Tribunal that his actions did not amount to Misconduct justifying summsry dismissal.
The Employee worked in a company where patients were sent abroad for medical treatment. emails relating to urgent evacuations were to be placed in the"evacuation box", but instead was placed in the "medical pending queue".
The employee actioned the email the following day as soon as it came to his attention in the normal course of events.
While there had been a complaint from the client, there were no actual negative effects on the clients health.
The Tribunal found the employee had acted in a prefessional and proper manner and awarded him the sum of €40,000.