The opportunity to appeal against dismissal is usually considered to be an essential element of a fair dismissal. In the recent case of Gwynedd County Council v Barrett, the Court of Appeal said that this is not necessarily the case in a redundancy dismissal.
The government has published a consultation document – Making flexible working the default – which proposes various changes to the existing rights for employees to request flexible working. This consultation document comes hot on the heels of the widespread flexible working that business and workers have had to adopt in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Homeworking has increased exponentially and been shown to work in many fields where it was previously rare. The pandemic has also created more awareness of the importance of work-life balance and caring responsibilities for children and family members who are unwell. Although some of this flexible working may not be sustainable in the long term, our eyes have been opened to what is possible and the government is seeking to capitalise on this opportunity.
Most employers have long been alive to issues of diversity in business in terms of protected characteristics such as race, sex and disability. But what about class? Socio-economic grouping is not a protected characteristic, so is seeking to ensure a certain percentage of ‘working class’ employees a hurdle too far?
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“Furlough Scheme”) has been a lifeline to many employers during the Covid-19 pandemic, allowing businesses to retain employees that would have otherwise faced redundancy, but the scheme is now winding down and the Government is encouraging employees back to work with the lifting of the last restrictions from 19 July 2021. The return to work and the winding down of the furlough scheme however mean that business will face new challenges.
One of the effects of the pandemic has been to slow down (some might say even further!) the litigation process in the UK courts, and despite one or two high-profile decisions relating primarily to business interruption insurance there have been few reported cases dealing with the effects of the pandemic relevant to asset financiers.
One likely vehicle of attack by customers arises from the doctrine of frustration of contracts, which may discharge the parties from performance of a contract that has become legally or physically impossible through no fault of the parties. In general terms this doctrine is very difficult to establish, and for example the European Medicine Agency failed in its attempt to use frustration to extract itself from a long lease on its central London premises as a result of the fact that it had to move to Amsterdam following Brexit.
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in Wood v Commercial First Business Ltdand Others and Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Pengelly [2021] EWCA Civ 471, on the issue of broker “secret commissions”.
These decisions have caused something of a storm in the industry, and somewhat surprisingly in our view the NACFB is recommending “both regulated and unregulated firms, working in all sectors, should be transparent about their commissions and fully disclose the amount of commission received”.
We came across an interesting argument concerning the right to sue after securitisation of assets in a recent reported case we ran for an asset finance company, Haydock Finance Limited v Starcruiser Bussing Limited [2021] EWHC 622 (Comm).
The case involved commercial vehicles and acting for the funder we brought a claim against the hirer for return of the vehicles and the guarantor for a substantial sum. There appeared to be no merit whatsoever in the Defence as served, but by the time of the hearing the Defendants turned up with a so-called “Securitisation Analysis Report” prepared by an academic in California who describes himself as an “Expert Analysis on Auto Agreement Backed Securities Data.”
The FCA has published revised consumer credit information sheets, the first update since July 2018. In accordance with section 86A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Funders are required to include a copy of the relevant information sheet when notifying a regulated customer that they are in arrears or default.
On the 22 June 2021 the Government extended, perhaps for the last time, the Coronavirus Act 2020 restrictions on issuing winding up petitions until 30 September 2021 (which is also when the furlough scheme ends) and landlord forfeiture/Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery until 25 March 2022.
It was assumed that other restrictions, such as the suspension of liability for wrongful trading, would also be extended but that was not the case and that suspension ended on 30 June 2021. So from 1 July 2021 directors can be sued for wrongful trading in respect of trading after 30 June which increases the deficit to creditors.
Many business owners are re-evaluating their future plans as a result of the pandemic. Some are finding that their thoughts on retirement planning are somewhat different now than they were back in 2019. Some owners have enjoyed more free time as their businesses have been forced to shut during the lockdowns and others have enjoyed more time at home as travel and office working has been discouraged.
In some cases exit plans have accelerated and business owners are looking at what options there are to achieve a sooner than expected exit. We consider some possible solutions in this article.