Archive News

Archive news page, please click to expand for further details.

• New Rules on Regulation

  New rules on regulation

  The Government has announced that from January 2013, it is going to extend it�s policy of lightening the regulatory burden on businesses and voluntary organizations, writes Antony Fyson of our Long Eaton commercial team 0115 973 4111. The current "one in, one out" policy is to become a "one in, two out" policy and means that before any new regulation can be implemented, the sponsoring department must identify cuts in other regulations that bring savings to business equivalent to double the cost of the new regulation.

• Express declarations of trust

  Express declarations of trust

  Luke Appleby of our Nottingham Wills & Probate team 0115 959 0055 has learnt that the Court of Appeal has held that where co-owners executed an express declaration of trust in favour of themselves as tenants in common in equal shares, the express declaration of trust was conclusive unless set aside, varied or rectified.

• Government consults on extending rights of permitted development

  Government consults on extending rights of permitted development

  Following substantial press coverage over recent months, the government has begun the consultation process on proposals to amend planning legislation to allow larger extensions to be built without the need for a planning application and to allow quicker installation of broadband infrastructure, writes Lynn Billyeald of our Nottingham Conveyancing team 0115 959 0055. The consultation, which ends on 24 December 2012, applies in England only.

• Company Commercial - Can high director pay lead to claims of unfair prejudice?

  Jason Waghorne of our Nottingham Commercial department 0115 959 6365 has learnt that the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court was wrong to dismiss a minority shareholder's unfair prejudice petition where the company's sole director had paid himself excessive remuneration prior to the company's insolvency.

  The High Court had held that was no unfair prejudice because the petitioner had failed to recognise the actions of the director by not inspecting a copy of the accounts which disclosed those payments. Reacting to this judgment, the Court of Appeal found that this requirement for diligence on the part of the minority had no basis in statutory provisions, in principle or authority. Instead, it was held that the sole director had fixed his remuneration by reference to his own interests, contrary to his duty as a director of the company. The court considered this to be unfairly prejudicial conduct.

• Employment Update - Employee bound by restrictive covenants in unsigned contract provided after promotion (HC)

  Employee bound by restrictive covenants in unsigned contract provided after promotion (HC)

  Tony Wilkinson of our Nottingham Employment team 0115 8525813 writes that the High Court has recently held that an employee was bound by the terms of a new contract of employment provided to him after he was promoted, but which he had not signed and returned to his employer. The new contract contained post termination restrictive covenants on which the employer sought to rely.

  The court held that the employee's acceptance of the new contract could be implied by the fact that he applied for private medical insurance (PMI) cover that was only available to him under it. The employee was therefore bound by the terms of the new contract from the date he applied for the PMI.

• Commercial Property - HMRC reverses position on property letting business TOGCs

  Kerry Elliott of our Nottingham Commercial department 0115 959 0055 writes: on 16 November 2012, HMRC published Revenue & Customs Brief 30/12 to explain that it will not appeal against the decision in Robinson Family Ltd v HMRC which confirmed that substance, rather than form, determines the treatment of Transfers of Going Concerns ("TOGC"). Adding more detail, If a transferor of a property rental business retains a reversionary interest in the transferred property, this will not prevent the transaction being classed as a TOGC for VAT purposes provided that the interest retained is less than 1% of the property value (excluding any mortgage or charge) and the usual TOGC conditions are satisfied.

• Company / Commercial Update

  The OFT recently conducted a pre-Christmas review of 156 retailer websites, and found that many of them may not be complying fully with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 and the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, writes Jason Waghorne of our Nottingham Commercial Team 0115 959 6365.

  Key failures included imposing unreasonable restrictions on customers' rights to a refund and failing to provide an email contact address (a web contact form is insufficient). If you sell goods to consumers over the internet, or act for businesses that do, now is a good time to review your online terms and conditions to make sure they comply with consumer protection law.

• Litigation - Court of Appeal:An adjudicator may not be entitled to fees

  Overturning Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd, the Court of Appeal has held that an adjudicator was not entitled to his fees because his decision was unenforceable, writes Majid Iqbal of our Nottingham Litigation team 0115 959 0055.

  Recently appointed Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, held that the parties' bargain with the adjudicator was for an enforceable decision. There was not agreement for payment for preparatory steps or for a decision that was valueless.

  This judgment is likely to be welcomed by a party to an adjudication where there is an unenforceable decision but, unsurprisingly, the judgment is unlikely to be welcomed by many adjudicators.

• Litigation - Norwich Pharmacal orders: Supreme Court guidance on proportionality

  The Supreme Court has turned its attention to the assessment of proportionality when "Norwich Pharmacal" order applications are made, writes Majid Iqbal of our Nottingham Litigation team 0115 959 0055. A "Norwich Pharmacal" order is an order of the court requiring the disclosure of documents or information from a 3rd party.

  The question which the Supreme Court considered is whether the claimant could force disclosure of the names of individuals who had bought and sold international and six nations' rugby matches. Upholding the order the court decided that there could be circumstances whereby the interests of the individuals whose personal data would be disclosed would not justify a "Norwich Pharmacal" order being granted.

• Wills and Probate - HMRC progress report on pensioner tax simplification

  HMRC progress report on pensioner tax simplification

  Luke Appleby of our Nottingham wills and probate team 0115 959 0055 writes that on 23 November 2012, the Office of Tax Simplification ("OTS") published the Revenue's response to its interim report on ways in which the taxation of pensioners could be simplified. A full response from the OTS will be addressed in its final report, which is due to be published in time for the 2013 Budget.

• Company / Commercial - Office of Fair Trading identifies concern with price comparison websites

  The OFT has published a report identifying key areas which undermine consumers' trust in price comparison websites, writes Jason Waghorne of our Nottingham commercial team 0115 959 6365. The areas of concern, identified across sectors, includes transparency of information, exclusion clauses and data privacy. The OFT believes that many practices do not sit comfortably with consumer protection laws