05 July 2019

Owners and directors of UK companies

Transparency of company ownership

I have responded to the Government's consultation "CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY AND REGISTER REFORM - Consultation on options to enhance the role of Companies House and increase the transparency of UK corporate entities", The consultation paper is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/799662/Corporate_transparency_and_register_reform.pdf
and my response is here: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Am5gcpyZOU7ngZ9TPIXf39CsPJVM9g?e=WTO3Wg

05 November 2016

Brexit: judicial independence and the Bill of Rights

Attacks on our guarantees of freedom from tyranny

The vicious attacks on the judges in the papers over the Brexit judgment are disgraceful. We have an independent judiciary and the rule of law for good reasons, and we forget them at our peril. But what did the court actually decide? Contrary to what the tabloids say, it has nothing to do with the referendum and whether it is binding - the Government did not even attempt to argue that the referendum provided legal authority for giving the Article 50 notice. The case turns on whether giving the Article 50 notice effectively changes the law enacted by Parliament. The Government accepted that the notice automatically brings about the end of UK membership and cannot be withdrawn. The court found that this changes the legal rights of UK citizens, and any Brexit agreement with the EU would also have legal effects inside the UK. The power of Government to make (and unmake) treaties is under the Royal Prerogative. It is clear - and very important - that ministers do not have power to change or override the law as enacted by Parliament. A commentator criticised the judges' reliance on "a 17th century statute" - but that is the Bill of Rights, as close as we get to a written protection of freedoms in English law! It says, "the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall ... the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie ... is illegall." Everyone knows that untangling UK laws from the EU will need an act of Parliament. What the judges have decided - and the point on which an appeal to the Supreme Court could succeed - is that the mere giving of the Article 50 notice has a legal effect that amounts to repealing or suspending the European Communities Act 1972, wholly or partially. That needs an act of Parliament. The central point is whether the Article 50 notice has that effect. Does it, of itself, change domestic laws; or does it, like many treaties, change international obligations in ways that need UK legislation to implement them, which comes later? Can ministers create a legal mess at international level, which then has to be sorted out later by Parliament? Wait for the next thrilling instalment of R (Miller) -v- S of S for Exiting the European Union. 

18 October 2016

Forfeiture of partnership and LLP profit shares

Having your slice and eating it

A partner can potentially forfeit all part of his profit share if he breaches his fiduciary duties, according to a recent decision of the High Court. That comes as a surprise to many partnership lawyers, and has some interesting implications for partnerships and LLPs.

Hosking v Marathon Asset Management LLP was an appeal on a point of law from the decision of an arbitrator, so the court was only asked whether forfeiture was possible in principle. The court did not have to decide on the details of how it would work, either generally or in this particular case, so there is a lot of room for interpretation. The judge did quote with approval Snell’s Equity saying “a fiduciary's fees may not be forfeit if the betrayal of trust has not been in respect of the entire subject matter of the fiduciary relationship and where forfeiture would be disproportionate and inequitable.”

A fiduciary is a person in a particular position of trust, such as a trustee, a director or an agent. In other contexts, it has been held that a fiduciary who breaches his fiduciary duties forfeits any right to remuneration for performing them. Most of the cases concerned agents, as in Imageview Management Ltd v Jack, where a footballer’s agent negotiating for a player to join Dundee United made a secret deal with the club for his own benefit, and forfeited his commission. Most of the cases concerned dishonesty.

In Hosking the arbitrator found Mr Hosking guilty of a series of serious breaches of his fiduciary duties to his LLP, largely by making preparations to leave and compete with the LLP. In that particular LLP, full-time working partners got twice the profit share of non-executive partners. Because of this, the arbitrator concluded that 50% of the profit share should be regarded as remuneration for executive services, and ordered it to be forfeited for the entire period in which Mr Hosking was in breach of fiduciary duty. This amounted to over £10 million.

The effect on partnerships and LLPs may be surprising:
  • Unlike a straightforward agency, the roles and responsibilities of partners are very complex. Everything a partner does is governed by his fiduciary duties to his partners or his firm. The arbitrator equated the whole of a partner’s share attributable to his work in the LLP with remuneration for performing his fiduciary duties, and said it was "proportionate and equitable" that he should forfeit the whole amount. As well as acting in breach of his fiduciary duties, Mr Hosking must also have performed his duties to a very considerable extent during that period, for the benefit of the LLP and his partners. He got no credit for that work. Was the betrayal of trust really “in respect of the entire subject matter of the fiduciary relationship”? Did it really “go to the whole contract”? 
  • The compensation awarded against him for the actual breach seems to have been £1.38 million, so the forfeiture was worth many times the proven financial loss. Can that really be "proportionate and equitable"? 
  • The forfeiture period was only four months. What if the breach of fiduciary duties had lasted much longer, perhaps his entire career with the LLP? Would he still have lost all his remuneration for the entire period? 
  • Is it fair or realistic to characterise a profit share at a rate of over £30 million a year as remuneration for executive services? Where do you apply for a job like that? 
  • A partnership or LLP agreement will not normally attribute a proportion of profit share to remuneration of working partners. It may have a formula which appears to show working partners getting more than others, but the reasons behind that may be varied and complex. Even if the profit share includes a fixed salary, you cannot always conclude that it represents the partner’s remuneration for performing fiduciary duties, or for working for the LLP. Some partners contribute their work, some capital, some contacts or know-how, or in most cases a mixture of all of them; the maths of how their shares are calculated will rarely be a guide to valuing these separate contributions. 
  • Does the operation of forfeiture really depend on how partners structure their agreements? If there is a fixed share, often called a “salary”, is that going to be seized upon as remuneration? If partners get interest on their capital, is the rest of their share “remuneration”? If all partners get different shares, can you infer “remuneration”? What if they all get the same, but some do more work than others? What if shares depend on personal contribution, such as personal billings, or on management responsibilities? 
  • In a partnership or LLP, the profit shares must go somewhere. They must still add up to 100%. If the profit share is forfeited, what happens to it? In this case the arbitrator said that it would fall into the general pool and be shared, including by Mr Hosking, according to the partners’ remaining entitlements. That result is a bit random: if there had been only one other partner, Mr Hosking would have received back half the amount he forfeited, under his remaining profit share. But if the arbitrator had held that he forfeited only half his remuneration, or that the “remuneration” element was less, he would then have got back a larger proportion of the forfeited amount. 
  • What if the partnership or LLP agreement makes no provision for the sharing of the amount forfeited? What if all other partners were on fixed shares? 
  • Partnership disputes typically involve a wide range of allegations and counter-allegations. What if all the partners had been in breach of fiduciary duties, perhaps in different ways and different degrees of seriousness? Would they all forfeit their profit shares, and where would they go? The potential for forfeiture is likely to create enormous arguments in partnership disputes as each partner claims that the others should forfeit all or part of their profit shares.
  • What if some partners are complicit in the breach of duty? Do partners forfeit their shares as against some partners but not others? Do they forfeit shares to each other? If all but one of the partners are guilty, does the innocent partner get 100%?
  • We seem to have slipped from forfeiture for “dishonesty” in the early cases to forfeiture for any breach of fiduciary duty in Hosking. In a commercial context, such as partnerships and LLPs, there really has to be more allowance for the realities of business life. Forfeiture is a punitive measure, not a compensatory one, and gives a windfall to the injured party even if all his losses have been made good. Bad behaviour, short of criminal fraud, does not normally have this effect.
At least the judge accepted that the partnership deed or LLP agreement can exclude forfeiture. I have already modified my standard forms (I immodestly think my LLP agreement is the best there is!) with a clause you can have for free: “Without prejudice to any other remedy for any breach of fiduciary duty or of this agreement, no part of the profit share of any Member is liable to be forfeited under the principle of equity that a fiduciary may forfeit remuneration due to his breach of fiduciary duty.”

Partnerships and LLPs are a business arrangement founded on contract. In my view there should be limits on how far equitable principles should intrude into partnership law. Enforcing fair dealing and openness between partners is essential, but this decision seems to go too far. 

26 February 2016

UK company fined at home for failing to prevent bribery overseas

A bung can cost more than a fistful of dollars

Last week Sweett Group PLC became the first company to be sentenced for the crime of failing to prevent bribery by an associated person (s7 Bribery Act 2010). One of its overseas subsidiaries paid bribes to secure a contract concerning an hotel in Abu Dhabi: Sweett Group is an AIM-listed construction consultant.

An English court imposed a fine of £1.4 million and a confiscation order of £851,000, plus costs. A number of lessons can be learned:

·     The Bribery Act has not gone away: the noise made by law firms when it came in has abated, but the Serious Fraud Office will prosecute British companies for failing to stop corruption overseas

·     Co-operating with the authorities will not always avoid prosecution – Sweett Group reported itself after it got media attention, but the SFO did not even offer a “plea bargain” deferred prosecution agreement

·     Penalties can be swingeing

·     Professional practices are not immune

·     UK companies must take precautions: demonstrable adequate procedures to avoid bribery, and an anti-bribery culture must exist before the problem arises.

16 February 2016

Using directors' powers for their proper purposes

Doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons

One of the more subtle aspects of a director's duties is the obligation to use his powers  only for the purpose for which they were granted. this duty was often known only to company law experts until it was codified in s171(b) Companies Act 2006.

The Supreme Court has just given a reminder of this duty in Eclairs Group v JKX Oil & Gas Plc. The company's board served information disclosure notices on two major shareholders, holding 39% of the voting rights. they then decided that the responses were inadequate and exercised powers to remove the shareholders' voting rights. The court concluded that the directors were motivated by the desire to stop these shareholders voting against the board's proposals at a forthcoming meeting, and not by a wish to achieve disclosure the information they had requested - so the decisions were invalid.

How do you disentangle all the complicated motives that lead a single director, still less a whole board, to come to a decision? Lord Sumption said, "Directors of companies cannot be expected to maintain an unworldly ignorance of the consequences of their acts or a lofty indifference to their implications. A director may be perfectly conscious of the collateral advantages of the course of action that he proposes, while appreciating that they are not legitimate reasons for adopting it. He may even enthusiastically welcome them. It does not follow without more that the pursuit of those advantages was his purpose in supporting the decision. All of these problems are aggravated where there are several directors, each with his own point of view." But he approved the formulations from earlier cases, "if, except for some ulterior and illegitimate object, the power would not have been exercised, that which has been attempted as an ostensible exercise of the power will be void, notwithstanding that the directors may incidentally bring about a result which is within the purpose of the power and which they consider desirable," and "regardless of whether the impermissible purpose was the dominant one or but one of a number of significantly contributing causes, the [decision] will be invalidated if the impermissible purpose was causative in the sense that, but for its presence, the power would not have been exercised."

The most common abuse of powers for an improper purpose seems to be in the issue of shares, where the power to allot shares is used to dilute minority shareholdings or distort the voting control of the company. The power to issue shares is primarily for the purpose of raising capital for the company, and its use as a weapon in shareholder disputes will usually be illegitimate. Dressing it up as a rights issue, perhaps where you know the minority have no money to invest, will not help if the rights issue would not have happened but for the intention to bring about the change of control.

04 November 2015

Penalty clauses are unenforceable - aren't they?

It was never a penalty!

The law has been clear: a clause in a contract imposing a penalty for breach of contract was unenforceable. What was completely unclear was  (1) what amounted to penalty and (2) whether the rule applied beyond the payment of money following a breach of contract. For many years the accepted formulation was that if contract term provided for a payment which was "more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss" it would be an unenforceable penalty; otherwise it was a legitimate "liquidated damages" clause and not a penalty. In more recent years more complex cases have tested the rule, involving more than a straightforward payment for non-performance. the trend seemed to suggest that any clause whose effect was intended to be deterrence rather than compensation was potentially vulnerable to attack as a penalty.

In a judgment today (4 November 2015) these developments of the law on invalid penalty clauses has been rolled back by the Supreme Court. It gave a combined judgment on two cases that could hardly be more different. Cavendish Square Holding v El Makdessi concerned "bad leaver" type clauses  under which Mr El Makdessi, who had sold shares in a company, stood to lose the remaining instalments of the price and to be forced to sell his remaining shares cheap — the last limb alone would cost him $44m — because he had breached non-compete covenants. ParkingEye v Beavis was about an £85 penalty charge for overstaying in a retail car park.

In both cases the Supreme Court said the clauses were not penalties and were valid. The test for a penalty is now "whether the sum or remedy stipulated as a consequence of a breach of contract is exorbitant or unconscionable when regard is had to the innocent party’s interest in the performance of the contract", which will allow far more aggressive terms than some of the cases suggested. Deterrents are allowed, so long as they are not exorbitant or unconscionable, and there is no longer any necessary relationship with the damages that might be awarded by the courts for the breach. Contract writers are likely to become bolder in specifying remedies for breach.

Most “bad leaver” clauses are now probably safe, though still subject to possible equitable relief from forfeiture if the party in breach can provide recompense by other means. 

The £85 parking overstay charge was also held not to be an unreasonable term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (now Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015).

The Supreme Court did close one loophole: in deciding whether the clause is a remedy for a breach of contract, the courts will look at the substance of the obligations and not just at how they are expressed. Writing the contract so that there is no breach, but just a conditional obligation, will not get round the rule on penalties if the substance is that one is the primary obligation and the payment is a secondary compensation: so if instead of saying "you must supply the goods; if you do not supply the goods you will pay me £1m" you say "you can either supply the goods or pay me £1m", the court can still decide that the supply of the goods is the primary obligation and the payment is a penalty for breach of it.

The case is a victory for traditional freedom of contract and for certainty, at the expense of the introduction of concepts of fairness, proportionality and the protection of the weaker party into contract law.

26 October 2015

US stock option plans subject to English law?

Courts clash on jurisdiction over employees 

It will come as a great surprise to many international employers that their US stock option plans are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of European courts, as the plans apply to employees in Europe.

Many American companies offer stock option plans or other share incentives on a global basis, with employees having conditional rights to receive stock in the US holding company, or stock issued by a vehicle created for the purpose in the USA. The stock option plan will be established in a state of the USA and subject to its laws, and may or may not be tailored through sub-plans to meet tax requirements in other countries, such as the Enterprise Management Incentive Scheme in the UK.
Rights are granted under a contract direct between the American entity and the employee. 

The Brussels Regulation (recast) governs the jurisdiction of all courts in the EU to hear cases, and says that an employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled. At first glance, the stock plan is not an "individual contract of employment" and the US entity is not the employer, so the special rules for contracts of employment in would not apply. As an English lawyer I have no difficulty with the concept of a separate contract with a third party dealing with stock options or incentives, and I would not consider it to be a contract of employment, or the incentive provider to be an employer. Indeed, in English law it has been held that a share option is not a term of the contract of employment: Micklefield v SAC Technology Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1002. 

But Samengo-Turner v J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd held that words used in EU legislation must be given an autonomous (European) meaning so that each Member State will apply it consistently and not interpret it in accordance with its own national law. The terms of the Brussels Regulation are essentially an employment protection measure, to stop employees being sued anywhere other than than their own home jurisdiction, and the English courts would give effect to that: not only by including any contract relating to employment as an "individual contract of employment" and the benefits provider as an employer, but also by granting an anti-suit injunction preventing the foreign company from taking proceedings in its own country.

In the recent case Petter v EMC Europe Ltd the English Court of Appeal became engaged in an unseemly scramble to establish jurisdiction either in England or in Massachusetts, with both courts being asked to grant injunctions preventing a party from continuing proceedings in the other place. Courts of different countries usually try to respect each other and not fight over jurisdiction, but in this case the Court of Appeal decided it had to grant an injunction effectively overturning the decision of the Massachusetts court, in order to protect the employment rights of UK employees.

A fight over the choice of court is not the end of the matter: an English court will still apply foreign law if that is the law chosen in the contract: the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations allows the parties to choose the applicable law, even for a contract of employment, and an English court can apply foreign law if presented with evidence of what the foreign law is. However, this is subject to the application of mandatory rules of local law. Whilst the courts of England and Massachusetts should theoretically apply the same laws in reaching their decision, a court in England is likely to give far greater weight to English employment rules such as the duty of trust and confidence between employer and employee, principles of English law banning contractual penalties and granting relief from forfeiture of assets, restrictions on deductions from pay and the requirements for non-compete restrictions not to be unreasonable restrains of trade. The legal environment in the UK is far more friendly to the employee than in the USA, so employees may be very keen indeed to have any litigation heard here.

18 August 2015

Dangers for nominee directors - and those appointing them

Directors' responsibilities in sharp relief, and a piercing of the veil of limited liability?

There may be nothing new in the idea that a nominee director must exercise independent judgement and act in the interests of his own particular company, rather than the interests of a parent company or the person appointing him, but Central Bank of Ecuador v Conticorp SA provides an eye-watering illustration to make nominee directors sit up and think!

A Mr Taylor, acting as nominee of a banking group, was the sole director of a Bahamas company. He acted only on the instructions of the banking group, and was paid the princely sum of $2,500 a year for acting as director. On instructions, he signed away a portfolio of assets worth $190m in a transaction at an undervalue. He made no enquiries as to the commercial benefit to his company of the transaction, and did not exercise any independent judgement. Because of that, he was fixed with the knowledge of the nature of the transaction of those instructing him. He was found personally liable for the whole $190m, plus interest that took the claim over $1/2billion.

That can easily happen when someone takes the office of director without taking seriously the attached responsibilities. Perhaps more interesting from  a legal perspective, and more worrying for corporate groups, is that the court also found that other group companies, and individuals in them, were also liable for the full amount due to their "dishonest assistance" of a breach of fiduciary duty. That potentially gives a claimant a much wider range of defendants to aim at, and could effectively avoid the limited liability of the company. It is not only the deluded nominee director who is at risk, but also those who give him instructions and devise the company's transactions. The other people involved could could not honestly have considered the transactions to be in the company’s interests, in the light of what they knew, so they were liable for dishonest assistance.

Turning a blind eye can be enough to establish liability for dishonest assistance: “Dishonest assistance requires a dishonest state of mind on the part of the person who assists in a breach of trust. Such a state of mind may consist in knowledge that the transaction is one in which he cannot honestly participate (for example, a misappropriation of other people’s money), or it may consist in suspicion combined with a conscious decision not to make inquiries which might result in knowledge..." (Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd).

No-one should ever act as a "nominee" director, in the sense of blindly acting on the instructions of someone else; but nor should anyone assume that they can safely let such arrangements go ahead when it is plain that there is a breach of duty, or  plain enough to require further investigation.

03 August 2015

Insolvency and consumer credit businesses

A trap for administrators and a workload for the FCA

Consumer credit businesses used to be licensed by the OFT, in a fairly relaxed licensing regime. It included not only consumer credit lenders, but also businesses with a tangential involvement in credit such as credit brokers, debt collectors and debt advisers. Credit brokers include most businesses who introduce consumers to credit providers, such as motor, furniture and electrical retailers. Many large businesses held consumer credit licences for minor activities outside of their main businesses, such as employee loan schemes or other employee benefits.

The Financial Conduct Authority has now taken over regulation of consumer credit, with all the complexity of the financial services regime. Consumer credit businesses have become "authorised persons" (including those who have the transitional "interim permission"). That has many consequences, some of them possibly unforeseen. One of them is the application of the FSMA insolvency legislation to all consumer credit businesses.

A possible major trap is that an appointment of an administrator by the directors of a consumer credit authorised business, or of one that should be authorised, needs the prior consent of the FCA (section 362A FSMA 2000). The directors must obtain the consent of the FCA before filing a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators, or if there is no qualifying floating charge holder and therefore no need to file such a notice, the consent must be filed at the same time as the Notice of Appointment of Administrators. Failure to obtain the FCA’s consent renders the administrator's appointment invalid; but the case of Peter Lloyd Bootes and others v Ceart Risk Services Ltd holds that this is a curable defect, so the appointment will take effect when the consent is obtained and filed.  

If there is a qualifying floating charge holder, and it makes the appointment, no prior consent of the FCA is required. But all documents in relation to the administration issued to creditors must also be sent to the FCA, and similar requirements apply to other forms of insolvency.

This is yet another thing for insolvency practitioners to look out for before appointment, and a potential source of uncertainty in the validity of appointments. A search of the FCA register should probably be routine (and the separate specialist registers, including the consumer credit register), but even that is not complete protection: if the business should have been authorised, for instance because it introduced consumers to credit providers, the FCA's consent is still needed. Whether the FCA will give timely consents in respect of firms it has never heard of, or precautionary applications for consent, remains to be seen.

09 July 2015

New Companies House search facility

First impression of the new free access to UK company data

The new Companies House search facility, giving free access to information on UK companies and copies of filed documents, has been launched in beta here.

My first impression is that it's excellent - immediate one-click access to documents, a huge improvement on the previous elaborate process of selecting, paying for and downloading documents through the public Webcheck facility and the subscription services used by business customers.

The only downside I can see is that information is now so easily accessible that I'm sure there will be an increase in abuse. There appears to be no attempt to prevent automated services harvesting information, which is now all free of charge, which could be used to assist in identity fraud, to identify targets for spam, or to put together more sophisticated abuses. the information was all there before, but was only available if you knew you wanted it and  were prepared to pay your quid per document.

17 February 2015

Unsigned contracts can be binding

Not worth the paper it isn't written on?

A recent High Court case is the latest reminder that even where the parties intend to enter into a formal written contract, they can become bound by the contract even before it is signed.

Most kinds of contract do not need any particular formality, such as written terms or a signature (property contracts being a notable exception). Written terms can be accepted orally. Contract terms can be accepted by conduct, even where the written terms make it clear that a formal signature was expected, and even where there are remaining terms that have not been agreed.
In A v B the buyer of a large quantity of cotton did not sign the purchase contracts, but did initiate the price fixing mechanism under the contract terms. The court held that this was unequivocal acceptance of the contract terms, so the buyer was bound by the contract. The seller was awarded over US$7m.

This is not new: if the parties work under the terms of a document, even a draft document, the court is likely to conclude that they intended those terms to be binding. Similar cases include RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production) in the Supreme Court in 2010, and it was held long ago that the partnership deed for a solicitors' firm became binding even though it was never formally executed.

Once commercial parties start to work together, the court will be very reluctant to find that there is no contractual relationship. The question then is what the agreed terms are. the most obvious source is the latest draft of the proposed written contract. that seems obvious, if all the terms were in fact agreed; but what if one party was holding out for something they regarded as important, which the other side clearly had not agreed? In RTS v Muller the Supreme Court said "an objective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclusion that they did not intend agreement of such terms to be a pre-condition to a concluded and legally binding agreement." So it is bad luck, or carelessness, on the part of the person arguing for the extra condition.

The same applies to an agreement that is expressly "subject to contract". If the parties start to work to the terms, the court is likely to say that the "subject to contract" position has been waived.

There would be no contract if all the "essential" terms were not agreed, but what is "essential" is just the legal minimum to create a binding contract. The law does not require all commercially-sensible terms to have been agreed - just price and quantity may be enough.

These cases are over the negotiation of bespoke terms, but they are related to the "battles of the forms" where both sides try to impose their standard terms - usually the buyer is assumed to have accepted the seller's terms by accepting delivery of the goods.

How should you protect yourself? If you must start work on a project before the formal contract is signed, it is best to have an interim agreement (often called a letter of intent) that sets out the terms for the immediate work, and what will happen if the parties fail to reach agreement on the main contract. An agreement to agree is generally unenforceable, so the interim agreement should include terms to unwind the relationship and ensure that no-one loses out unfairly if the terms do not get agreed.

24 November 2014

Data protection: enforced subject access requests

Demanding CRB checks now an offence

Employers and service providers requiring individuals to obtain and disclose certain protected data, such as criminal records checks or barring records, will commit an offence from 1 December 2014.
Only employers in certain sensitive occupations can lawfully obtain enhanced criminal record checks from the Disclosure and Barring Service (still often called "enhanced CRB checks"). Some employers and service providers, such as insurance companies, have developed a practice of insisting that applicants exercise their rights under the Data Protection Act to obtain their own sensitive personal data, then provide a copy of the report to the company. The report might be from the Disclosure and Barring Service (which replaced the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority), the police or the government.

Many businesses will have to change their practices as a result. Some unfortunately have not realised that rights to privacy are now real and are here to stay, even relating to important matters such as serious criminal records or preventing insurance fraud.

There are exceptions where the company is authorised by law to obtain the information or where obtaining them is in the public interest, but in most cases it will no longer be possible to circumvent the restrictions on who can access this sensitive data.

19 July 2014

What does "in witness" mean in in my legal document?

What meaneth witnesseth?

What do those strange words about "witnesseth" (or similar) mean, at the beginning and end of a legal document?

Apart from telling you that your solicitor is a bit old-fashioned, they don't add a great deal.

"In witness whereof" does not have anything to do with witnesses to the signatures. It means "as evidence of which", or "to demonstrate their agreement". It has no particular legal significance in the modern age, except that in England a document intended to have effect as a deed must say so, and this is the usual place to do that: "in witness whereof the parties have executed this document as a deed on..." This is the "testimonial clause"  or "incujus rei testimonium" and it matches the testatum at the beginning of the document, after the recitals, traditionally "Now this deed witnesseth...". What is sandwiched between the two is the operative part of the deed, so the recitals or schedules do not normally have legal effect as operative provisions unless the deed says so.

It can certainly but put in modern English. I start the business part of my documents with a heading "Operative provisions:" and end with "The parties have [signed this agreement][executed this document as a deed] on the date stated at the top of page 1." I just hope my abandoning tradition never ends up being challenged in the Court of Appeal!

03 April 2014

Proportionate liability clauses upheld

Need a small slip make you liable for the whole loss?

For many years, businesses have been trying to limit liability according to their fair share of the fault.  Among the first to argue for "proportionate liability" were the big accountants, who are regularly sued over corporate failures because their insurers had deep pockets. The issue frequently arises in the constructions industry, where there are often several firms of contractors and professionals who might share responsibility for a fault or delay.

In most cases, where there are two or more possible defendants, they will be jointly and severally liable for the loss. that means the claimant can sue any or all of them, and recover the whole of his loss from the chosen defendant, leaving the defendants to sort out contributions amongst themselves. that can be very unfair to defendant if the others have gone bust or disappeared. In the very worst cases it can even make claimants careless about the choice of contractors: so long as they have one solid defendant, they need not worry about the competence or financial strength of the others.

"Net contribution clauses" have often been inserted in contracts, but lawyers have doubted whether they worked. Now the Court of Appeal has confirmed that they do - even in consumer contracts.

In West v Ian Finlay & Associates a very simple term was held to work: "Our liability for loss or damage will be limited to the amount that it is reasonable for us to pay in relation to the contractual responsibilities of other consultants, contractors and specialists appointed by you". The clause protected an architect from liability for the part of the claimant's loss fairly attributable to defective work by the (insolvent) building contractor. It survived challenges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

All businesses which could potentially share liability with others should review their contract terms and consider whether they should be using a net contribution clause. That includes most businesses in the construction industry and most professional firms. It remains to be seen whether the same approach can be extended to exclude liability for the defaults of your own sub-contractors.

31 March 2014

Consumer credit licences all expire

If you haven't acted, your consumer credit activities are now illegal

All licences granted by the OFT under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 lapse at midnight tonight. That includes the group licence granted to all solicitors.
From tomorrow (1 April 2014), consumer credit businesses - including ancillary activities such as credit brokerage and debt collection - require authorisation by the Financial Conduct Authority. If you haven't already applied for interim authorisation, you will need to stop carrying on the regulated activity until you have gone through the application process - likely to take some months.
There is no general permission for solicitors, so those engaged in consumer credit activities, including debt collection from consumers, now have to be dual-regulated by the FCA and the SRA (and pay two sets of fees for the privilege). Will consumers be any better off? No, of course not.