How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Jo C. Your Own Question

Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 69361
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
12826847
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

1. In 1960, three graduates A, , and C, at University U designed

Customer Question

1. In 1960, three graduates A, B, and C, at University U designed and built a prototype aircraft. All aspects of the work were carried our by the team members.No member of the University staff made any technical or financial contribution to the project.
2. The Mk 1 aircraft flew in 1961. In 1962 B and C ended their involvement. A continued the work, and produced a Mk 2 version in 1962 - 1965. Mk 2 crashed on a test flight in 1965. The wooden airframe was moved to University U, pending repairs to the metal frame.The aircraft was not donated to University U.
3. In 1963 professor D took up an engineering professorship at University U. He had nothing to do with Mk 1 or Mk 2, in terms of design, construction, or finance.
4. In 1966 professor D took the following steps with respect to Mk 2, without the knowledge or consent of A;
( a ) He organized the manufacture of an inaccurate copy of the metal frame, and inserted in the wooden airframe.
( b ) He transferred the modified aircraft from University U to museum X.
( c ) He made a written agreement with museum X, in which he described himself as the" custodian " of the aircraft, or " owner " if ever museum X wished to dispose of it.
5. In 1983 museum X wrote to professor D, and said they no longer wished to exhibit the aircraft. They asked him to make alternative arrangements for its storage or display. Professor D failed to do so.
6. Museum X then took the initiative, and arranged the transfer of the aircraft to museum Y, without reference to professor D or to ***** subsequently described themselves as the owners of the aircraft.
The queries are;
( a ) Did professor D's actions amount to theft of the aircraft from A ?
( b ) Did professor D's failure to act in 1983 amount to abandonment of the aircraft ?
( c ) Was museum X entitled to act as it did ?
( d ) Was museum Y entitled to claim ownership of the aircraft ?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
I've been working hard to find a Professional to assist you with your question, but sometimes finding the right Professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're ok with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.
Thank you!
Nicola
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
I apologise as we have not yet been able to find a Professional to assist you. Do you wish for me to continue to search for someone to assist you or would you like for us to close your question at this time?
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Dear Nicola,

Please continue your search for an expert to answer my question. If more details from me would be helpful, please let me know.

Best wishes,

A. XXXXXXXX

Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

10.45 a.m. 27 January 2015.

On 10 June 2014 I posted a law question to Justanswer. The answer was provided by Alex J. The question I posted on 21 January 2015 is similar to my earlier question. So I suggest that you contact Alex J, and ask him to reply to my current question.

Regards, ***** *****

Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you and I will send this question to Alex J. But I need to let you know, I have already sent this question directly to all Experts twice already, and it may be that no-one feels they can answer.
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you for your question and thank you for requesting me.
I will try and assist you with this, however given the time that has passed establishing a claim may conceptually difficult due to rules on limitation.
Can you confirm - when Professor D made his copy - what did he refer to in order to make the copy?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

1. Please explain briefly the rules on limitation.

2. Professor D claims that the frame copy he made in 1984, was based on information from B. But B had nothing to do with the Mk 2 version of the aircraft. A was the chief designer of Mk 2, and he did not supply professor D with any drawings. The purported copy by Prof. D was grossly inaccurate, and non - functional.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
Just clarify Prof . D has made an entirely non functional copy of the prototype - was the prototype ever registered as a patent?
The issue you have here is the police will not investigate this as theft - it is civil matter pertaining to breach of some form of intellectual property - this leaves us with the following questions:
1. What is the intellectual property - is it a patent or is schematics and plans that are protected by copyright;
2. Who owns the intellectual property - if it was designed as part of a university course I suspect the university own it and the creators have a licence to it;
3. Is the IP still valid - a patent expires after 20 years - copyright lasts for the life of the creator at least.
Taking this forward:
1. Has the university explained why they gave up ownership to the prototype?
2. What is professor D doing with his model? Is he selling it?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

The following statements will hopefully clarify the position;

1. The aircraft consists of a wooden airframe, and a metal frame for the pilot.

2. Prof. D made a non-functional and inaccurate copy of the metal frame only. He put it in the Mk 2 airframe, and transferred the combination to museum X, without A's permission.

3. There is no patent on any aspect of the Mk 1 or Mk 2 design.

4. A is the chief designer of Mk 2. He holds the copyright in the engineering drawings to which it was built. A has a full set of the drawings.

5. Prof. D has retired. He refuses to state to University U, or to A;

- what he did, and when.

- why he considered himself entitled to act as he did.

6. The student team was entirely independent of University U. No member of the University staff made any technical or financial contribution to the project.

7. University U has no ownership rights in the aircraft. Mk 2 was not donated to them, or to Prof. D. Prof. D has falsely claimed ownership - is that not theft ?

8. Prof. D is not doing anything with his version of the metal frame. The aircraft is currently on display at museum Y, containing his unauthorized copy of the frame.

I look forward to your response, in the light of the above information.

Best wishes.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
I personally do not believe it is worth pursuing a criminal complaint against professor D - too much time has passed and suspect that the police would struggle to build a claim given the evidence involved. A criminal claim has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt - the threshold of civil complaint is only on the balance of probabilities i.e 51% likely.
Assuming that civil action is your only way forward - what remedy are you seeking? A return of MK1 and MK2?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.


Reply to Justanswer on 31 January 2015.


Thank you for your comments dated 30 January 2015.

1. The aircraft display at museum Y has been photographed, containing the unauthorized version of the Mk 2 frame, due to Prof. D.

2. An engineering analysis has been made, of the differences between the genuine and false versions of the Mk 2 frame.

3. There are letters written by Prof. D, which confirm beyond doubt, that he modified Mk 2 and transferred it to museum X, without A’s permission.

4. There are also documents which show that the director E, of museum Y, described the aircraft in the 1980’s, as being on “extended loan “. Currently museum Y claims to be the “ owner “ of the aircraft. They cannot produce any evidence of a loan or donation by A, B, and C.

5. Presumably this is the evidence which the police would require.

6. The main focus is on the ownership of the aircraft. The key questions about Prof. D, museum X, and museum Y, are;

- what were they entitled/not entitled to do, in their respective circumstances ?

- has there been collusion between the three parties, to try to steal the aircraft from A, B, & C ?

7. The owners A, B, and C believe that the best solution is to;

( a ) inform D, X, and Y, that they acted unlawfully.

( b ) undertake not to pursue them with legal action, provided that the airframe is returned to A, to enable a restoration of the complete aircraft.

8. Please provide a brief explanation of “ limitation “, as it applies in this case.

Best wishes.


Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
A limitation will not apply to a criminal complaint - which is what you seem to be pursuing here. It is highly un likley that the police will commence proceedings for theft against a museum - there would no way of proving a dishonest intention. They may have turned a blind eye but they did not actively seek to steal the design.
Can you confirm when approximately you believe that museum Y asserted rights over the design and prototype - was it some time after 1983?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.


Reply to Justanswer on 4th February 2015




1. Thank you for your query, dated 3 February 2015.

2. I have copies of the following documents;

2.1 A letter written by the director E, of museum Y, in which he says “ I managed to get the

aircraft on extended loan from the Science Museum “. The letter is dated 6 November 1984.

Note that the Science Museum “ took responsibility “ for the aircraft from museum X,

without reference to A, B, and C.

2.2 An entry dated April 2007 in the National Aviation Heritage Register. It says that the

“ owner “ is the Science Museum ( false ) and that the current aircraft location is at museum

Y ( true ).

2.3 An entry dated January 2015 in the Register, which describes museum Y as the aircraft

“ owner “ ( false ). The Science Museum is not mentioned.

3. Museum Y has never been given any custodial or ownership rights with respect to the aircraft, by A, B, and C. Does not the change in description, from “ loan “ to “ ownership “, amount to

attempted theft, by museum Y ?

4. Please state your legal opinion, about what each of the parties was and was not entitled to do.

The parties were professor D, museum X, the Science Museum, and museum Y.

Best wishes.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
I am reviewing this now. I will revert to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
AJ
Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
The bot***** *****ne is the owner of the aircraft is the person that designed and built it. Proving that may be difficult.
Simply taking credit for something will not necessarily amount to theft - museum y will not be charged with theft firstly because a corporation is not capable of committing theft - and secondly it is the employees who have to act on behalf of the company,they are therefore the ones that can commit a criminal act such as theft. If you are looking to have someone charged - then the only feasible person would be whoever wrote the letter for and on behalf of museum y - do you know who this is?
If the property has been stolen then a third party cannot derive title in stolen property (even acting in good faith) - have you put museum y and the Science Museum on notice that they are holding property that is subject to a dispute?
Do you actually want the aircraft back?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

6thFebruary 2015


Thank you for your comments of 4 February.

1. A, B, and C designed and built the aircraft. An archive exists which contains hundred of engineering drawings and photos. So it is easy to prove ownership of the aircraft. No document exists, which transfers ownership to University U, or to professor D.

2. The same person has been the director of museum Y since 1984. He wrote the letter about “ extended loan “from the Science Museum. Both museum Y and the Science Museum are aware of the history of the aircraft. They have supplied documents, about their role in that history, to University U. University U has copied them to A.

3. It was professor D who transferred the aircraft to museum X, in 1966. They in turn transferred it to the Science Museum in 1983. The third move was to museum Y in 1984.

4. Everything that professor D did, was done without the knowledge and consent of A, the owner and designer of Mk 2. A is the appointed representative of B and C, in all matters concerning the aircraft.

5. Can you state what crimes relating to ownership and copyright were committed by professor D ?

What was and is the relevant legislation ?

6. The owners want to retrieve the aircraft from museum Y, in order to carry out a complete restoration on it.

Best wishes.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
I have received these questions. I will write a response and revert to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Relist: No answer yet.
The expert sought more information on 4 Feb 2015.
I provided it on 6 Feb. But I have not received an answer. The question is currently described as
" closed ". Please reopen it, and ask the expert to respond.
Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
My apologies as this question closed I misplaced it on my list.
I am working on this now and will respond by 10am.
Kind regards
AJ
Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
In my opinion Professor D has not committed a crime. If you were clutching at straws you might say this was fraud - but the threshold to prove this is so high, you would would need a proverbial smoking gun. What I mean by smoking gun is some letter or document where D has quite deliberately claimed ownership of the wooden aircraft frame.
In terms of recovering the item - A, B and C have to prove the following:
- Under the Copyright Design and Patent Act 1988 - they were the creators of the work and design;
- As Creators of the drawings they own them;
-On the basis that A, B and C own the drawings to be able to produce the aircraft, they created the wooden frame to the aircraft as a prototype - and at no point did they ever part with ownership or title of this.
- Consistently A, B and C have always maintained that the wooden frame is on loan to the Museum - on that basis if they have any acknowledgement from the museums of the "loan" of the wooden frame, then title to the frame will have never transferred and always remained with A, B and C. In my mind this is the best strategy moving forward - taking the view that A, B and C never challenged the loans to the various museum, but at the same time it was always accepted that title to the frame belonged to them. What evidence do you have from the museum acknowledging the loan?
As for the metal frame - if Professor D Built that, even from plans subject to copyright that he did not own, he will own the finished product of the metal frame. While he may be guilty of copyright infringement under S.17 of the CPDA 1988, he will probably have a defense on the basis that he did not exploit it for commercial use and made it for research purposes.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Thank you for your reply of 24 February.

Professor D made arrangements in 1966 with museum X, to display the aircraft there.

He did this without being given the permission of A, B, and C. He entered into a written

agreement with museum X about it. Unfortunately museum X cannot supply a copy of the


agreement, as it is lost. However, in 1983 they told professor D that they no longer wanted


to display the aircraft. Professor D wrote them a letter, a copy of which survives. In that


letter he refers to the agreement made in 1966, and he says;

“ I was custodian of the aircraft before I arranged with museum X for them to take

over its custody. However it was clearly part of those arrangements that should museum X

dispose of the aircraft in any way whatsoever, the ownership of the aircraft should revert to me. “

Professor D was never appointed custodian of the aircraft, by A, B, and C. In my view,

the statement about ownership, in his 1983 letter, amounts to a “ smoking gun “. Is he not guilty of the theft of the aircraft, by claiming custody, and then ownership ? Both claims are false.

A, B, and C did create the design drawings for the aircraft, and these survive. As you say, at no point did they part with ownership or title to the aircraft which they built. Museum X, the Science Museum, and museum Y have all made arrangements with respect to the loan and display of the aircraft, without reference to A, B, and C. A letter written by the director of museum Y in 1984 says;

“ The Science Museum had taken responsibility for the aircraft, and I felt that its real home should be in museum Y. I managed to get the aircraft on extended loan from the Science Museum “.

This is evidence that the loan occurred, without either party being entitled to make the arrangement.

The metal frame which professor D produced was a grossly inaccurate copy of the genuine frame. He inserted it into the aircraft without A’s permission, and it has been on display in that condition since 1984, at museum Y. Museum Y charges visitors for admission, so this amounts to commercial use of the aircraft. Professor D and Museum Y are knowingly responsible for;

1. Derogatory treatment of a copyright work.

2. False attribution of professor D’s design, to the actual designers.

3. Dealing commercially in an infringing copy of the metal frame.

I look forward to receiving your views, in the light of the above information.

Best wishes.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
As a starting point, if you feel you have sufficient evidence to prove theft then you have to go and explore this with the police.
Just so I can understand what remedy your are seeking - do you intend to sue Museum Y and Professor D for delivery up of the wooden aircraft frame?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Thank you for your reply of 26th February 2015.

In response to your queries, I have summarized the surviving documentary evidence about the roles of professor D and museum Y. You are the legal expert, and I seek your opinion as to whether they are responsible for the theft of the wooden airframe. If they are, what is the relevant legislation ?

Professor D was employed by university U when he carried out his actions with respect to the aircraft. I hold them jointly responsible for the present situation of the aircraft. I have supplied university U with extensive documentation about the project, which proves that A, B, and C were the designers and constructors of the aircraft in 1961, and that therefore they are the owners and copyright holders today.

The remedy I seek is the return of the wooden airframe, so that an authentic restoration can be carried out. I prefer to do this, by persuading the three parties involved that they were not entitled to act as they did. A necessary part of this process, is to draw their attention to the numerous ways in which they have acted illegally, and infringed the rights of A, B, and C. Hopefully, it would then not be necessary to sue university U, professor D, and museum Y.

I look forward to your reply.

Best wishes.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
As I explained, I do not think there is enough evidence to prove theft. The police will look at this and say there is a civil claim. This is simply because proving a crime means you need evidence that shows something occurred "beyond all reasonable doubt" - on a civil claim the threshold is much lower is it is on the "balance of probabilities" which is a much lower threshold - 51% likely. I do not think that one letter which is over 30 years old is enough to prove "theft". The Theft Act 1968 defines theft as" A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly." I am not convinced you would be able to show an intention to permanently deprive without some more consistent evidence. In any event the only was to prove the criminal element to this is to make a police complaint.
In relation to the civil element - the relevant legislation is the Copyright Patents and Designs Act 1988 (S.9) - the author of original works is the person who owns them unless they were commissioned to create the work. If you can prove that Prof A created the plans - then you can prove that you had the right to build the wooden frame. Accordingly to convince these other parties you need to demonstrate that you never parted with legal title to the frame the only way you can do this is to show that Prof A left the frame in the custody of the university who allowed it to be loaned to other museums without his consent.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

26th February 2015.

Thank you for your reply today.

Professor D is responsible for more than one letter describing his actions re the wooden airframe He tried to steal an insurance payment due to me, by writing to the company without my knowledge. He also tried to steal the metal frame from its storage location, again without my knowledge. Both attempts were unsuccessful. I have not mentioned these aspects before, because they would considerably lengthen the account of the aircraft’s history. The basic point is that there are several documents, which prove his intention to steal, on three separate occasions.

In 1984, the director of museum Y stated that the aircraft was on “ extended loan “. In 2015, he is stating that museum Y is the “ owner “ of the wooden airframe. In my view, this is a claim which makes him a party to the theft process begun by professor D.

A, B, and C were not commissioned to design the aircraft. It was a personal undertaking, wholly independent of university U. Professor D took up his post at the university three years later. He had nothing to do with any aspect of the project. He did not leave the airframe in the custody of the university, and they had no role in lending it to three museums. It was professor D alone who took the initiative, in arranging the transfer of the airframe to museum X.

My understanding of the situation, is that professor D and the director of museum Y are key figures in a multi-stage process, whereby they are trying to retain the aircraft illegally, and to profit from its display. Both are aware that it belongs to A, B, and C, and that no-one else has any ownership rights in it. Do you agree with this summary ?

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi
Thank you.
I have received this and will revert to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
AJ
Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
Just to clarify one point, do you have copies of the incriminating documents in relation to Professor Ds actions?
What you are describing goes beyond theft to actual fraud - stealing payments from an insurance company, means you have a whole other complainant. Do you have any evidence from the Insurance Company?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

3rd March 2015.

Thank you for your reply of 2nd March.

I have copies of the following incriminating letters, written by or referring to professor D;

1. The aircraft crashed on a test flight in November 1965. The aircraft was insured, and the premium was paid by A. Professor D contacted the insurance company, without A’s knowledge or consent. His letter ( now lost ) claimed that the insurance payment should go to the society S which provided the aircraft construction grant. The company told A about professor D’s intervention, in a letter which survives. They told professor D that he had no role in the matter. The company proceeded to pay A, according to the terms of the policy. Professor D’s attempt to divert the insurance payment was unsuccessful.

2. Letter from professor D to museum X, dated 21st February 1983. He said that he was the “ custodian “ of the aircraft. This is a role which he assumed, without obtaining the agreement of A, B, and C. He also referred to an earlier agreement with museum X ( now lost ) which said that if museum X disposed of the aircraft, then ownership of the aircraft would revert to him. He was not entitled to make this claim, because he made no contribution whatsoever to the project, and he was not given any rights by the aircraft owners.

3. Letter to museum Y, dated 4th January 1985. Professor D said that the aircraft metal frame was stored in a named location. He wrote “ We could easily obtain it, and present it to museum Y, to go along with the wooden airframe which is currently on display “. Professor D sent someone to try take the metal frame, without the knowledge and consent of A. The keeper of the frame on A’s behalf refused, and the attempted theft was unsuccessful.

In addition, there are three published sources, which contain Professor D’s false claim to have supervised the design of the aircraft, by A, B, and C. In fact, professor D came to university U three years after the design and construction of the aircraft.

Please provide details of the legislation which applies to professor D’s unauthorized and illegal activities.

I look forward to your reply.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you.
I have received this, I will revert to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

20 March, 2015.

Thank you for your reply of 3 March. I have not enquired about your progress

in preparing a reply since then, due to illness.

Please review our interaction to date, focusing particularly on the roles of


Professor D, and the director of museum Y. I would like to know what legislation


applies to their false claims and unauthorized activities. I plan to meet the museum

director, and to request the return of the wooden airframe, as the appointed

representative of the designers, constructors, and owners of the aircraft. If he

resists, I will recite the details of the illegality of his position, based on the

information which you provide. If he still resists, I will tell him that I will go to the

police, to report a case of attempted theft.

I look forward to your reply.

Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
My apologies this question was closed for some reason so I could not respond.
I can confirm I have received this update.
Kind regards
AJ
Expert:  Alex J. replied 1 year ago.
Hi,
Thank you for your patience.
Having researched this other than breaches of Intellectual Property under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act that we have discussed, the only other legislation that may support this is S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation.
The issue I have in considering this, is what "personal gain" has Professor D actually made other than the recognition he has received?
Kind regards
AJ
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

I'm unable to respond to Aj recently for two reasons:

1 .I was ill in march, I've been on several weeks in the hospital
2. has not been able to access justanswer, bec. of repeated failure of the internet connection

Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Hi.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
I can confirm that the answers you have had were correct and full

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Jo C.

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/EM/emus/2015-7-7_192327_bigstockportraitofconfidentfemale.64x64.jpg Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BE/benjones/2015-12-1_0437_ennew.64x64.jpg Ben Jones's Avatar

    Ben Jones

    UK Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    11553
    Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BU/Buachaill/2012-5-25_211156_barrister5.64x64.jpg Buachaill's Avatar

    Buachaill

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    1754
    Barrister 17 years experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JO/jojobi/2013-3-19_0265_maxlowryphoto.64x64.jpg Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry

    Advocate

    Satisfied Customers:

    894
    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/UK/UKLawyer/2012-4-12_9849_F2.64x64.jpg UK_Lawyer's Avatar

    UK_Lawyer

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    750
    I am a qualified solicitor and an expert in UK law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/KA/Kasare/kasare.64x64.jpg Kasare's Avatar

    Kasare

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    402
    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/OS/osh/2015-7-7_19268_gettyimagesb.64x64.jpg Joshua's Avatar

    Joshua

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8199
    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice