By Vijay Bange
The timeless catch phrase is of course from the famous comedy duo Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. Looking beyond the blame game is important. Problems will inevitably arise with complex large infrastructure projects. Understanding the underlying reasons and what the root causes are will perhaps aid in the process of reducing conflict. Continue reading ““And That’s Another Fine Mess You’ve Gotten Me Into:” Disputes in the Construction, Engineering and Energy Sectors”
I am an unashamedly massive fan of the Back to the Future film franchise. Yes, even the sequels.
One of my favourite lines from the franchise is spoken at the end of the first film and the beginning of the second. Doc, Marty and Jennifer are about to travel to the distant future (2015, to be precise). When Marty points out there might not be enough road to get up to 88 mph, Doc flips down his brushed aluminium shades and intones: “Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need roads.” And the DeLorean flies off to the future thanks to an early 21st century hover conversion.
Brings a smile to my face every time
Continue reading “The Digital Age Still Needs Infrastructure”
They say that the house always wins, but as the recent case of Andrew Green -v- Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited t/a Betfred illustrates, even the house can get caught out sometimes.
When lucky punter Andrew Green won over £1.7m following a 5 ½ hour stint on Betfred’s ‘Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven Blackjack’ game in January 2018, he was dismayed to find out a few days later that the company was refusing to pay out, claiming that there was a glitch in the game, and that the house rules stated that, in those circumstances, Betfred were not required to pay. Mr Green sued, and the matter eventually ended up in Court. Following a hearing on 15 October 2020, Mrs Justice Foster DBE granted Mr Green summary judgment and awarded him his winnings.
Continue reading “Luck of the Law: Lessons to be Learned from Green v Petfre”
A step too far?
- Third party consultants, and duty of care in tort.
- No duty of care owed in tort by a third party design consultant to a contractor with no direct contractual nexus.
Large infrastructure projects are often subject to intricate contractual relationships between the relevant stakeholders, and this will also include collateral warranties to cover any potential gaps in liability to mitigate potential effects of one of the participants in the contractual matrix becoming insolvent. Parties lower down the contractual chain may engage their own designers or consultants to discharge their obligations up the contractual chain. An interesting scenario arose in the recent case Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Bathgate Realisations Civil Engineering Ltd (Formerly Dunne building & Civil Engineering Ltd (In administration) (2) BRM Construction LLC (3) Argo Global Syndicate 1200 (2021) , and the two issues that were heard by way of preliminary issue.
- The main contractor sub-contracted certain design works to the sub-contractor.
- In turn the sub-contractor sub-contracted certain design work to the designer (Second Defendant).
- There was a requirement pursuant to BS 5975 for certain independent design checks and approvals to be done by an independent third party. For that reason, and to discharge its contractual obligations to the main contractor, the sub-contractor engaged a firm of consulting engineers to do this, and issue the relevant certificates.
- The contractor alleged that defects issues arose because of design issues.
- The contractor issued proceedings against the sub-contractor and the designer.
- Judgment in default was obtained against both.
- The sub-contractor was in administration. The designer was uninsured. The consultant had gone into liquidation.
- The contractor pursued the consultants insurers.
- There were two preliminary issues that were dealt with by His Honour Judge Fraser, sitting in the TCC:
Continue reading “A step too far?”
By Sam Pearse
The UK Government has launched a Consultation regarding cryptoassets, focussing on whether unregulated cryptoassets should fall within the financial promotions regime, thereby affording protection for consumers. There is no immediate impact on cryptoasset businesses, but the regulatory landscape is changing.
The UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sets out restrictions on the communication of invitations or inducements to engage in investment activity, such as investing in securities. In brief terms, only those persons who are authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) may make such communications, or persons who are making a communication which as been authorised by an authorised person. Incidentally, the ‘approved communications’ exemption is also being reviewed by HM Treasury and our article about that can be found here.
At its core, the restriction on financial promotion is intended to protect consumers from being mis sold products, whether by virtue of being provided with insufficient information or by fraudulent activity or investing in immature or inadequate market infrastructures. Continue reading “UK Government Consultation on the Promotion of Cryptoassets”
By Natalie Stewart & Drew Salvest
HM Treasury has opened a consultation regarding a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the financial promotions of unauthorised firms. Responses to the consultation are sought by 25 October 2020 and the government is particularly interested in responses from authorised firms currently approving the promotions of unauthorised persons, retail consumers and unauthorised persons which communicate financial promotions. Unauthorised firms who rely on authorised persons to enable them to market products in the UK should consider approaching their usual approving firms to ensure any implementation of this consultation does not inhibit market access.
Financial promotions (“Promotions”) are restricted under Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”), pursuant to which a person must not, in the course of business, communicate an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity unless the Promotion has been made or approved by an authorised person or it is exempt. Unauthorised firms often use authorised firms which are authorised to carry on a regulated financial services activity to approve their Promotions in order to comply with the regulations (the “Authorised Persons Approval Route”).
Authorised firms are not required to notify the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) once they have approved an unauthorised firm’s Promotion, nor does the FCA sign off on approved Promotions before they are communicated to consumers. As such, the FCA is only made aware of potential breaches of the relevant regulations. Continue reading “HM Treasury Consultation on the regulatory framework for the approval of financial promotions”
By Sam Pearse
As previously reported (see here), the UK Government launched the Future Fund on 20 May, with the intention of providing financial support to British start-ups. It has proved to be popular, with over £320m of convertible loans to 322 businesses having been approved.
One of the criteria for accessing the Future Fund was that the applicant had to be a UK-incorporated company or a group with a UK ultimate holding company. The UK Treasury has now elected to expand the programme to include certain overseas companies.
It is not uncommon for British start-up businesses to incorporate outside of the UK, or put a non-UK holding company in place, in order to be eligible for local funding programmes. For example, European businesses may incorporate in the US in order to be more attractive to investors in the US and being able to participate in US accelerator programmes. After all, the US seed and venture capital market has much deeper pockets than its European equivalents.
In order to address this, the British Business Bank has announced the expansion of the Future Fund in order to:
“accommodate businesses that contribute significantly to the UK economy, but do not have their parent company based in the UK because they participated in a non-UK based accelerator programme”.
Revised eligibility – overview
Continue reading “COVID-19: Update To Future Fund Eligibility”
By Nic Hart & Liam Hutton
The Flexible Furlough Scheme (FFS) commenced today July 1st 2020 and you can now submit claims for periods starting on or after 1 July.
GOV.UK published a news story this afternoon announcing this commencement.
As discussed in earlier mail outs the main premise of the FFS is to allow;
“businesses to bring furloughed employees back to work on a part time basis and will be given the flexibility to decide the hours and shift patterns of their employees – with the government continuing to pay 80% of salaries for the hours they do not work.”
The FFS will remain open until the end of October 2020. Continue reading “COVID-19: UK Gov Flexible Furlough Scheme – 1 July 2020 Update”
By Nic Hart & Liam Hutton
The Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice has given the opinion in VL (Case C-16/19) that disability discrimination can be found by comparison between the treatment of one group of disabled employees and other disabled employees. Whilst Advocate General Opinions are not binding on the Court, they are commonly regarded as influential, and this Opinion has the potential to create a new basis for comparison in discrimination cases.
The case relates to an employer who paid a monthly allowance to those of its disabled employees who obtained and submitted a disability certificate as evidence of their disability. The issue of discrimination arose because only those who had not already obtained and submitted their certificate were eligible for the allowance.
The employer’s purpose for doing this was that by bringing about an increase in the number of disabled workers employed, the employer would be entitled to a reduction in its contribution to a disability fund.
In the Opinion, the Advocate General addresses whether this could be regarded as discriminatory for the purposes of the Employment Equality Framework Directive, and sheds some light on the applicability of the prohibition of discrimination to the conduct of an employer who treats two groups of disabled individuals differently on the basis of an apparently neutral criterion (in this instance, the date of submission of a disability certificate). Continue reading “ECJ Advocate-General Opinion: Disability Discrimination Can Be Found By Comparison With The Treatment Of Other Disabled Employees”
By Nic Hart
As advised, the Government Guidance for the new Flexible Furlough Scheme (FFS) was released on Friday evening – June 12th.
Accessibility to the new Guidance is not the most straightforward as the information is spread across the existing CJRS Guidance and three new pieces of Guidance. The Government has also produced a summary overview of the key changes to the CJRS and the timetable for the same.
The major changes to the existing scheme with effect from July 1st are:
- there will no longer be a minimum three-week period for furlough. Whilst there will not be a required minimum period to furlough employees, any claim made to the CJRS portal must be in respect of a minimum one week period regardless of how many days may have been worked in this one week period.
- Employers can no longer put in claims to the portal that cover more than one payroll period. All claims through the portal must start and end within the same calendar month.
- An employer cannot furlough any greater number of employees than have been furloughed previously – subject to the provisions of those returning from parental leave.
The key principles of FFS are clear. Continue reading “New Guidance on the UK Gov Flexible Furlough Scheme – 12th June 2020”