Last week, the UK Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, announced a ban on certain professional and PR services exports from the UK to Russia. The banned services include management consulting, public relations and accounting. The Foreign Secretary commented that the ban will help to ensure that Putin fails in Ukraine, by cutting off service exports that are fundamental to the Russian economy.
Philippa Baty joined Bermans in May 2022 and is a Paralegal in our Property team.
She studied at the University of the West of England qualified as a Solicitor in 2017.
Philippa primarily assists the team on a variety of commercial property matters.
Outside of work, Philippa enjoys seeing friends and family, going for walks/to the beaches on the Wirral…plus the odd psychological thriller or true crime documentary!
Jessica joined Bermans in April 2022 as a Property Finance Paralegal.
Jessica graduated from Liverpool John Moores University with a First Class degree in Law in 2021 and is currently studying the Legal Practice Course. Jessica also has experience in advising Commercial Employment, Public Sector Employment and Business Immigration clients.
Jessica assists with all types of Property Finance transactions, including but not limited bridging finance deals, re-finances, buy-to-let investment acquisitions and sales.
We were rather surprised recently to see a commercial law firm attempt to impose Third Party Debt Orders (“TPDOs”) both on an invoice financier and on debtors whose debts had been assigned to it, in each case in favour of a claimant who had secured a court judgment against the assignor.
TPDOs were formerly known as Garnishee orders, and are governed by Rule 72 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides:
In a recent Briefing we commented on the case of Haydock Finance Limited v Starcruiser Bussing Limited [2021] EWHC 622 (Comm) in which we successfully represented a funder in defeating an unmeritorious challenge, backed up by the debtor’s “expert evidence,” to the technical aspects of an asset financier’s securitisation process: see https://www.bermans.co.uk/securitisation-and-the-right-to-sue/
We wondered whether this sort of challenge might spread across to invoice finance, so we were interested to see the Court of Appeal reject a series of technical challenges to the assignment process in the recent judgment in a series of cases reported at [2021] EWCA Civ 1682.
The business of law has changed significantly over the last couple of decades, ranging from significant developments in terms of the structure and operation of commercial law firms servicing business clients, to the funding models of “ambulance chasing” litigation covering a wide range of claims from alleged financial mis-selling to simple road traffic accident claims.
It is some time since we examined the topic of invoice finance for lawyers in a Briefing, and we were reminded of its significance in a recent court judgement involving a claim by a funder against a solicitor’s insurer which would have been of great interest to the invoice finance industry had it succeeded.
Intellectual property rights are valuable assets of your business and it is important that you take steps to protect them. You can do this by registering your rights and ensuring that anyone infringing those rights is stopped as soon as possible.
Employers dread the vexatious litigant. Even the most spurious of tribunal claims takes up valuable management time and incurs legal fees to defend. The judgment of the EAT in Attorney General v Taheri will be a salve to those employers who have previously had their fingers burned by a serial complainer. The EAT can make an RPO – an order restricting an employee’s right to bring tribunal proceedings – if the employee has habitually and persistently, and without reasonable grounds, brought vexatious proceedings in the employment tribunal (or EAT) against one or more employers. In Taheri, the EAT has shown that there is a limit to what the employment tribunal system is prepared to accept from a vexatious litigant.
The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR) are derived from EU law. They aim to strike a balance between protecting agency workers and preserving the benefits of flexibility that using an agency provides to both businesses and workers. The AWR contain anti-discrimination provisions. Agency workers must be given the same basic terms and conditions of employment as direct recruits when they have worked for a hirer for 12 weeks. Regulation 13 gives agency workers the ‘day 1’ right to be told by the hirer about any relevant vacancies, with the aim of giving agency workers the same opportunity as direct recruits to find permanent employment within the business. The information can be given in a general announcement in a suitable place in the hirer’s business.
| 
