By Vijay Bange and Tanya Chadha
2020 will be forever synonymous with the global pandemic. The end of the year saw the approval of vaccines and with that a hope to an end, or at least the taming, of the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst this has dominated the media in 2020, there has been momentum in the press and Parliament about the continuing problem of dangerous cladding.
A summary of the unfolding story board is below.
Continue reading “UK Construction & Engineering: The cladding catastrophe car crash!”
By Vijay Bange
The New Year has been ushered in by an alarming surge in hospitalisations and sadly a dramatic increase in deaths from the ongoing pandemic. The Government was under increasing pressures to take action. Consequently, the Prime Minister has on 3 January announced another national lockdown, with measures which became law on Wednesday 6th January 2021.
Continue reading “UK Construction & Engineering: Another Lockdown”
By Vijay Bange
In June 2020 I wrote an article entitled “Climate change- a wind of change for construction?”. In summary this raised the point whether increasing focus on climate change in relation to major infrastructure projects might run counter to economic efforts to counteract the effects of the global pandemic. Whilst I am writing this from a UK perspective, I dare say the issues are equally relevant to other jurisdictions.
The issue of pollution in major cities in the UK has again been highlighted by the tragic death of a child whose family lived near the south circular in Lewisham. In a landmark case, the second coroner’s inquest found that the levels of pollution were above world safe levels, and that air pollution was a material cause of her death. This tragic case will bring to the fore the national debate on pollution and climate change. Continue reading “Climate change and Construction-revisited”
By Vijay Bange and Tanya Chadha
- Constructive trust and / or Quistclose trust.
Deluxe property Holdings Ltd (a company registered under the laws of the British Virgin Islands) v (1) SCL Construction Limited & (2) HMRC  EWHC 2865 (TCC)
Cash flow is the lifeblood of the construction industry. This phrase, coined by Lord Denning MR, and cited relentlessly in the construction industry still holds true. In times of recession, following the cash and preserving the funds that are in dispute is crucial. There is no point in spending time and money pursuing a dispute to fight over a pot of cash that is at real risk of being dissipated. Continue reading “Follow The Money”
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 Vijay Bange
Adjudicators and Arbitrators are occasionally faced with a situation where one of the parties refuses to engage in the process. In such circumstances tribunals are left in a difficult position to ensure fairness and have regard to due process, whilst also giving careful consideration as to whether it is just and appropriate to continue the process. Ultimately, however, the reluctance of one party to engage should not deprive the other of their legal and contractual rights.
A peculiar position came before Mr. Justice Andrew Baker, in Shell Energy Europe Limited and Meta Energia SpA  EWHC 1799. This case concerned the Defendant’s application to set aside a previous order made by Teare J, made under s. 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, granting the Claimant leave to enforce an award of arbitration dated 4 December 2019. The award in favour of the Claimant was for EUR 19,712,077.20. The seat of the arbitration was London, and it was under the LCIA Rules. The Defendant participated with the arbitration fully until the final stages; however, on 19 September 2019, with a two-day final hearing set for 25-26 September 2019, the Defendant dismissed its solicitors and counsel, on the basis (according to the CEO) that it was not satisfied with the way the legal team had pursued or presented the defence. The next day, the Defendant retained new solicitors, and the arbitrators granted an adjournment of the final hearing to 8-9 October 2019. Continue reading “The reluctant party – failure to participate in final arbitration hearing because of inability to find QC”
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”