A test case involving JK (Harry Potter) Rowling’s son should mean that offspring of celebrities will be protected from intrusion into their private lives. The Court of Appeal has ruled this week that pictures taken of Ms Rowling’s son with a long-range camera may have infringed his human rights. The ruling greatly increases the legal protection of minors who happen to have famous parents.
Agency workers may soon be entitled to the same salaries, paid time off and sick pay if a bill, soon to be debated in Parliament, succeeds. The private members’ bill, which comes as a result of pressure from Europe, won a crucial vote at the committee stage on Tuesday.
Both opposition parties attempted to stall the passage of the bill through Parliament by proposing an amendment. This was defeated by a concerted effort from Labour backbenchers, so the bill will go through to the next stage.
The employers’ organisations - the EEF and the CBI - both expressed dismay at the vote.
According to the CBI, the bill is” bad legislation that would be damaging for business and would not benefit vulnerable workers.” A spokesman for the EEF said “the bill can only increase manufacturers’ costs and administrative burdens, threatening UK manufacturing jobs.” However, the TUC welcomed the proposals.
112 construction firms have been accused of bid rigging by the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) in England. There are two main allegations. One is that they engaged in cover pricing - where one or more bidders collude with a competitor during a tender process to obtain a price or prices which are intended to be too high to win the contract. Cover pricing arrangements have previously been found by the OFT and the Competition Appeal Tribunal to be illegal and in breach of the Competition Act 1998 due to the restrictions on competition that arise.
In addition, a minority of the construction companies have been accused of entering into arrangements whereby it was agreed that the successful tenderer would pay an agreed sum of money to the unsuccessful tenderers (known as a ‘compensation payment’).
One problem for companies tendering for a project is the cost of bidding. Back in 1994 one of the recommendations in the Latham Report was that the Government should, on complex projects, pay some compensation to unsuccessful bidders but that has not been taken up.
So why not allow the bidders themselves to arrange compensation? It then becomes another part of the bidding cost: if three or four companies invited to tender agree that a fixed amount would be paid by whichever of them wins the contract to each of the unsuccessful bidders, there would arguably be more incentive for each of them to submit a bid. And the process could be made transparent with a copy of the bid compensation agreement submitted with the tenders.
Several years ago a client bidding for a large contract in the Gulf suggested this approach, simply as a way of mitigating the risks for the bidders, and wanted to know if it was illegal. The cautious legal opinion was that it could be seen as anti-competitive, and it would be more problematic if only some of the bidders signed up.
But if all the bidders are involved, and the client is aware of the arrangement, competition is not really affected and even those who lose get at least some compensation for their effort - like the horses in the annual Heinz 57 race at Leopardstown in Ireland where every horse gets a prize. (I know as I once had a share in the horse that came last!).
NOTES
Under the Competition Act 1998 and Article 81 of the EC Treaty, cartels are prohibited. Any business found to be a member of a cartel could be fined up to 10 per cent of its worldwide turnover. In calculating financial penalties, the OFT takes into account a number of factors including seriousness of the infringement(s), turnover in the relevant market and any mitigating and/or aggravating factors. The basis of the OFT’s considerations are set out in OFT’s guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/ca98_guidelines/oft423.pdf
Once the OFT have issued their Statement of Objections (SO) to the companies concerned, the parties then have the opportunity to make written and oral representations in response to the case set out by the OFT. Such representations will be considered by the OFT before any final decision is made.
The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) has today published a report to measure the overall value of consumer detriment in the UK economy i.e. where a consumer suffers unfair treatment from its dealings with an organization. For every 1000 consumers interviewed, 542 problems were identified, and across the whole of the UK population this equates to an estimated 26.5 million problems over the last year.
The report was compiled using information from 10,000 consumers, and estimates the cost to consumers was around £6.6 billion in the last 12 months. It was commissioned to establish where consumers were suffering the most harm through poor products and services.
The report found that on average, the highest level of financial detriment occurred in the insurance sector, followed by home maintenance and improvements, and personal banking. The report also concluded that the goods or services which consumers reported the highest proportion of problems were telecommunications, domestic fuel, and personal banking.
However, only 64 per cent of respondents complained or took action to rectify their problem, and this was higher for problems occurring in the insurance, personal banking, internet and domestic fuel sectors but lower in the small domestic appliances, medical goods and services and postal services.
One important finding was that there was more detriment to consumers where problems were less numerous and more costly (79% in products or services over £1000), than from more frequent problems that were less costly (0.3% where the product or service was less than £5). The findings of the report will now be analysed and used to help the OFT prioritise future work.
Download a copy of the report from the OFT website - http://www.oft.gov.uk
Consumers wanting to complain about a product or a service should call Consumer Direct for clear, practical consumer advice on 08454 04 05 06 or http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk.
On 6th April some more sections of The Companies Act 2006 come into effect. This is the longest statute ever passed by Parliament and its implementation by stages merely adds to the difficulties created for those who have to advise on the subject.
Among the new rules that may be of interest to readers of this blog are:
Also, the 56 pages of Part 15 of the Act dealing with the accounts of a company come into effect (with one exception concerning the requirement for companies to include a ‘business review’ in the directors’ report).
Among the new items:
In addition, auditors will be able to have their liability for negligence limited if a company signs a ‘liability limitation agreement’ - but this must not last for more than one financial year, its terms must be ‘fair and reasonable’ and shareholders have to approve the agreement.(Sections 527-538)
The Chancellor’s Budget includes confirmation of the cut in the basic rate of Income Tax to 20 pence from 22 pence, a delay to the planned increase in fuel duty, and measures aimed at tackling climate change.
A number of changes announced in last year’s Budget will come into effect from 6 April 2008 (the 2008/9 tax year):
Child Benefit for the eldest or an only child goes up 70 pence to £18.80 for 2008/09. For other children, the amount rises 45 pence to £12.55. Guardian’s Allowance increases 50 pence to £13.45. The ‘first child’ rate increases to £20 a week from April 2009. Also:
The Budget announced an increase of £100 to over-80s households and £50 to over-60s households in 2008/09, via their Winter Fuel Payment.
The overall annual investment limit for ISAs rises to £7,200, of which £3,600 can be in cash, from 6 April 2008.
The ten pence starting rate of tax is removed for non savings income and replaced with a new ten pence starting rate for savings income with a rate limit of £2,320.
Alcohol duty rates increase from 17 March 2008. The duty increases will add four pence to the price of a typical pint of beer, 14 pence to the price of a typical bottle of wine, and 55 pence to the price of a typical bottle of spirits.
Duty on tobacco rises in line with inflation - 11 pence on a packet of twenty cigarettes.
The two pence per litre increase in fuel duty previously announced by the Chancellor has been delayed until 1 October 2008.
Vehicle Excise Duty (VED, or ‘car tax’) for the most polluting vehicles increases by £100 to £400 (for petrol and diesel cars in the graduated VED band G. Other bands see increases of £5).
From 2009, alongside the Budget there will be a five year carbon budget setting carbon emissions; and the long-term target for emissions reductions has been increased to 80 per cent by 2050.
Specific proposals include the introduction of legislation in 2009 to impose a charge on single-use carrier bags - the money raised would go to environmental charities.
The Stamp Duty Land Tax exemption for zero carbon homes is extended retrospectively to new flats from 1 October 2007
The Budget announced a package of measures aimed at increasing the take-up of Gift Aid, including the introduction of a transitional rate of 22 per cent in 2008/09.
Measures were also taken to reduce burdens on charities, including reforms to the audit process and a programme for bringing more smaller charities into Gift Aid.
Previous Budgets announced Inheritance Tax allowances - for 2008/09, the allowance is £312,000 for individuals and £624,000 for married couples and civil partners.
For more information go to: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/Budget2008/DG_073037
An award of £25,000 damages for libel against a newspaper for a review by their restaurant critic was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Belfast this week.
The court ordered a retrial as they said the jury had been misdirected, with confusion between fact and comment in the article in the Irish News, which criticised the food, drink, staff and smoky atmosphere at Goodfellas restaurant.
This decision is seen as good news, not just for restaurant critics but other reviewers as well.
Graham Calvert, the greyhound trainer who sued William Hill for letting him carry on betting when he had asked them not to, lost his case in the High Court today. The judge ruled that William Hill owed no general duty of care to Mr Calvert, who lost over £2 million with the bookmakers.
We hope Mr Calvert had some insurance to cover his costs - betting on the law can be very expensive!
You can read our previous story on this case that was posted on 16th February.
The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) has issued High Court proceedings against a letting agent whose terms can potentially require landlords to pay the agent substantial sums in commission, where a tenant continues to occupy the landlord’s property after the initial fixed period of the tenancy has expired - even if the agent plays no part in persuading the tenant to stay, and no longer collects the rent or manages the property. The terms can also require the landlord to pay these sums after the landlord has sold the property as well as demanding commission where the landlord sells the property to the tenant, even where the agent has played no part in negotiating that sale.
The letting agent is Foxtons and the OFT’s action is for a declaration on the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs) to certain terms in Foxtons’ lettings agreements with landlords. The OFT is also seeking an injunction against Foxtons preventing it from using the terms.
The action taken by the OFT is in response to consumer complaints. If successful in this case the OFT intends to enforce compliance with the law, as declared by the Court, throughout the letting industry wherever similar terms are being used.
Foxtons contends that its agreements with landlords are not unfair and continues to use these terms, and accordingly, the OFT has issued proceedings so the courts can decide the matter.
The Government’s assault on small business has had a slight reprieve with the latest change of mind concerning capital gains tax. Last autumn, the Chancellor announced the ending of the 10% rate for businesses and the introduction of a new, flat rate of 18%. Since, ostensibly, the change was intended to do something about the massive gains of private equity firms and the people most hit would be owners of small and medium businesses, there was a fully justified outcry.
The latest position – which still has to be confirmed in the Budget next month – now seems to be:
The Chancellor might say he is trying – but his clumsy proposal to impose a £30,000 charge on non-doms is not the cleverest idea to come out of the Treasury. And small businesses have already suffered recently with the removal of the corporation tax exemption for the first £10,000 of profits.
