Direct discrimination happens if an employer treats an employee less favourably than it treats others because of sex. A female employee would need to show that she has been treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical comparator of the opposite sex whose circumstances are not materially different to hers. In Ali v Capita Management, the Court of Appeal decided that a man on shared parental leave could not compare himself to a woman on maternity leave who was paid more than him. The Court of Appeal said that the purpose of maternity leave goes beyond childcare and centres around the health and wellbeing of the pregnant and birth mother. Mr Ali’s claim failed because his circumstances were materially different to his comparator’s. The correct comparator was a woman on shared parental leave. The EAT has recently considered a similar case, this time involving a man on shared parental leave and a woman on adoption leave.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA) provides protection to employees taking part in trade union activities including industrial action. TULCRA provides an absolute ban on dismissing an employee for taking part in industrial action, but there is no ban on subjecting employees to a detriment short of dismissal on the same grounds. Section 146 TULCRA protects employees against detriment for taking part in ‘trade union activities’ but not industrial action. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right of workers to join a trade union. UK law must be interpreted in a way which gives effect to the ECHR.
One of the more surprising handouts from the chancellor in response to the pandemic was the stamp duty holiday. As it comes to an end we explore what impact this will have on the housing market.
SDLT is the tax you pay on property purchases. The amount you pay depends on the value of the purchase. Prior to July 2020, SDLT was payable on all properties priced over £125,000.
Faizan joined Bermans in January 2021 and is a Solicitor in our Corporate team in Manchester.
Faizan graduated from the Legal Practice Course in Manchester and has experience of working on a variety of corporate transactions including share/asset acquisitions and disposals, company reorganisations, restructures, demergers, incorporations and also private equity.
Faizan assists and works closely with the Corporate team to advise clients including SMEs and owner managed businesses on various corporate instructions.
Outside of work Faizan enjoys dining out, keeping fit at the gym, partaking in sports and hiking. He also has a keen interest in sports, science, film and culture.
January’s Supreme Court judgment in the FCA’s test case against insurers for COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims was a great relief to many SMEs, as we wrote at the time (see below)
Reports at the time of the judgment said that 370,000 businesses could be impacted by the test case – not all favourably although the judgment was undoubtedly good news for businesses overall.
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.”
On 1 December 2020 Crown preference in relation to unpaid taxes reappeared on the insolvency landscape for the first time since the abolition of the doctrine in the Enterprise Act 2002.
Debts owed to HMRC are now to rank as secondary preferential debts, ranking after employees’ preferential claims but, importantly, before claims of floating charge holders.
In our spring 2020 Briefing just as the global pandemic was taking hold we analysed some high-level issues likely to affect contractual relationships on the one hand between invoice financiers and their clients, and on the other hand between invoice financiers and debtors.
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 invoice financiers.
In our last Briefing we explained certain temporary changes to the insolvency regime arising from the pandemic and set out the relevant dates of those provisions.
On 26 March 2021, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/375) extended various temporary provisions in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA 2020”) that had otherwise been due to expire in March and April 2021.
There are somewhat conflicting reports as to the current level of deliberate fraud in the invoice finance industry, but it is worth keeping a watch on some of the cases relating to director qualifications.
In this regard it is noteworthy that three directors were recently banned for a total of 29 years for an invoice finance fraud.
| 
Solicitor