The B word – banter – is a word employers should dread. Good teams will thrive on a joke or two between workplace friends. However, offensive and potentially discriminatory comments can be masked as ‘banter’, indicating to the recipient that taking offence is unreasonable. A culture where banter is acceptable is likely to affect productivity and staff retention. It will also expose the employer to the risk of tribunal claims, especially harassment. Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating the employee’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
Disclosure of Brokers’ Commissions remains very much a live issue within the asset finance industry, and in our last Briefing we suggested some practical steps in Dealing with Broker Commission Refund Claims – Click Here
Since then we have been involved in a number of instructions which has caused us to undertake a thorough review of the case law both in terms of the Wood and Pengully decisions and various other cases, which has given us some encouragement in the approach to be adopted to at least some of these claims.
We recently succeeded in full in a claim for damages for conversion on behalf of a financier which raised the apparently novel point of whether a large Excavator fell within the definition of “motor vehicle”.
In De Lage Landen Leasing Limited t/a Hyundai Construction Equipment Europe Finance v Dring (Manchester Circuit Commercial Court 13 July 2022) both parties were the victim of a fraudulent disposition of the Claimant’s Excavator by the Hirer and/or an associated company.
Financiers have been, together with almost all other litigants, subject to what seems to be an ever-increasing spiral of expense in navigating the various fees and charges payable under the court system, a trend which is been in place now for almost 2 decades.
We thought it is worth highlighting two points which can bring some relief to this situation.
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 October 2024 and is a Solicitor 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, including freehold and leasehold sales and purchases.
Outside of work, Philippa enjoys playing the drums and cycling, as well as 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 and is a Solicitor in our Property Finance team based in Liverpool.
Jessica obtained a First Class Law Degree and completed her Legal Practice Course and Masters Qualification at Liverpool John Moores University. She also has experience in advising Commercial Employment, Public Sector Employment and Business Immigration clients.
Jessica deals with a variety of property matters, including but not limited to, property finance transactions, commercial and residential property acquisitions and sales, bridging finance deals, re-finances, buy-to-let investment acquisitions and sales.
Jessica prides herself on providing effective commercial solutions for her clients.
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.
| 
Trainee Solicitor