Ian Robotham, Associate in the dispute resolution team at Steeles Law reports on the latest development in the “Interest Rate Swap Scandal”.
Update
During the summer of 2012, Steeles Law reported on the outcome of the Financial Services Authority’s review of the conduct of banks when selling interest rate derivative products to SMEs (click here for a link to that article). In that article, we provided our comments and suggested that, in our opinion, loose ends had been left by the FSA.
It will shortly be revealed whether the FSA has attempted to address, and succeeded in tying up, those loose ends!
As regular readers of our articles will know, the FSA and major banking institutions reached an agreement in June 2012 whereby, amongst other things, the banks would provide redress to non-sophisticated customers to whom it sold Structured Collars and would review the sales to non-sophisticated customers of other interest-rate hedging products.
Whilst further progress of the agreement has been perceived by some as being too slow, to ensure that all customers in scope of the agreement with all the banks are treated fairly, the FSA has over the last few months required those banks to develop a methodology explaining how they propose to conduct the redress and review of past business.
In doing so, the FSA has required the relevant banks to conduct a pilot scheme involving a selection of each bank’s affected customers to assess each bank’s approach and ensure that it is delivering the right outcomes for customers. The FSA stated that it would be actively involved in reviewing the bank’s methodology and conduct of the pilot scheme, and would require changes where necessary.
It has recently been reported in the media that the outcome of the pilot scheme is due to be published on Thursday 31 January 2013.
Please refer back to our website for an update on the outcome of the pilot scheme and our comments as to how this will affect SMEs who have unfortunately found themselves embroiled in the “Interest Rate Swap Scandal”.
At Steeles Law we have acted and continue to act for a number of clients involved in disputes with banks including the mis-selling of complex financial products. If you or your business has entered into a hedging agreement, whether that agreement remains in place or not, we would like to hear from you. For a no obligation discussion about interest rate hedging products call us today.
If you require do require assistance please contact Ian Robotham.
Every week we will be posting a ‘behind the scenes’ story of our furniture. It gives a short summary of how the furniture was inspired and creates a feel for the furniture.
Norwich International Airport is delighted to announce the launch of Fly Norwich 2013 produced in association with Archant Norfolk.
The brochure highlights more than twenty holiday destinations that can be reached directly from Norwich International including classic favourites such as Corfu and Majorca to Bulgaria and Turkey whose growing popularity has been confirmed with the additional flights to both Dalaman and Bourgas. In addition the airport has also welcomed Tunisia back for 2013 with twice weekly departures and Tenerife has been reinstated as a year round destination.
First issued in 2011 Fly Norwich has gone from strength to strength with more than 110,000 copies printed this year, an increase of over 400% on 2012 along with an additional eight pages of content too.
Andrew Bell, CEO of Norwich International commented “The airport’s brochure has proved to be hugely popular over the past couple of years and we are delighted that, with the increased holiday options available from the airport this year we have been able to expand the brochure and its distribution to a wider audience. A complete guide to everything available from Norwich, we see this brochure as a ‘must have’ for anyone planning to travel from their local airport in 2013.”
The press has recently reported on the six month prison sentence given to property tycoon Scot Young on 16 January 2013 in the High Court, Family Division, as a result of his failure to provide full and frank financial disclosure amid an acrimonious divorce.
Mr Young, said to have owned assets worth some £400m in 2006, now claims to have lost the fortune but has failed to provide an explanation as to the whereabouts of the assets.
In the divorce proceedings in 2009, Mr Young was ordered to pay £27,500 per month in maintenance but he has not made any payments. Edward Fitzgerald QC, for Michelle Young, told the court that Mr Young had “given absolutely no explanation” about where the money had gone. According to Mr Justice Moor, a fine or suspended sentence for Mr Young would not have been a “sufficient penalty”.
When couples go through a divorce or separation and a financial settlement at the end of the relationship cannot be readily agreed, there is a requirement for each party to provide full and frank disclosure of their finances to the other. The decision by Mr Justice Moor to impose a prison sentence for Mr Young’s “flagrant and deliberate contempt” in not doing so underlines the importance of complying with the requirement to give full and frank disclosure and the possible consequences for failure.
The case involving Mr Young makes it clear that individuals should not even contemplate an attempt to “hide” their wealth in order to secure a more advantageous financial settlement. Furthermore, the obligation to disclose all information regarding personal finances not only applies at the outset but is an ongoing requirement throughout the course of proceedings.
Amanda Owens, head of the Family Team at Steeles Law, commented that people must not treat their obligations lightly: “When anyone embarks on a divorce or separation, it is vital that as much information as possible on their finances and assets is given to their lawyer at the outset and throughout proceedings as they progress.”
At Steeles Law our family team strive to help you deal with the issues in an empathetic and timely manner and in the most cost effective way for our clients as possible.
If you are considering divorce, dissolution or separation the outcome always depends on the circumstances of each case and therefore we would urge anyone about to embark on this to seek independent legal advice at the earliest opportunity.
For further information or to arrange for a fixed fee appointment with one of our practitioners, please email family@steeleslaw.co.uk or telephone 01603 598000.
Keen to mingle with the Hingham locals, Naked Marketing has collaborated with our next door neighbours to create this set of quirky postcards.
Mongers Achitectural Salvage prides itself on being no ordinary reclamation yard – giving a future purpose and function to quality pieces from the past.
Offering so much, from cast iron radiators, original fireplaces, antique bathrooms, reclaimed floorboards and brass door furniture with vast experience and extremely talented local craftspeople, Mongers Architectural Salvage in Hingham is a treasure trove of items.
Having worked on the toilets of the fashion brand, Jack Wills’ flagship store in London and judging by the famous names who have given testimonial on the Mongers website, this little Norfolk secret is well and truly out. Encouraged by this we approached and designed a range of postcards to promote the different items that Mongers stock. The postcards wanted to encourage a younger, ‘funkier’ audience to pay attention with an on-trend vintage appeal and quirky copy lines, without completely alienating the traditional customer.
Sam Coster, owner of Mongers commented “We were delighted when Naked Marketing’s young creative team moved into the Old Bank next door, and really hope that the postcards will be the first of many marketing ideas that they can carry out for us. Mongers are very ambitious to take architectural salvage to new audiences and believe that Naked Marketing can help us with this.”
The Law Society and the Land Registry have joined together to issue a guidance note to Solicitors reiterating the importance of advising co-owners to carefully consider how their property is to be held.
The intention is that, by taking detailed legal advice from their Solicitors at an early stage, co-owners should avoid the possibility of any disagreement if their relationship breaks down in the future.
Most disputes arise between unmarried cohabitees, but they can also arise between family members, friends or business partners who buy property together. In particular problems can arise where one party has contributed more towards the purchase price of the property and this has not been properly documented.
Recent court decisions such as Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, have highlighted the importance for joint home buyers to define their respective interests in the property and to make sure those interests are accurately recorded.
Whether you currently own property jointly or are planning to purchase property in joint names, Steeles Law can advise you on the options available to protect your investment.
The Land Registry Public Guide on Joint Property Ownership can be found here.
For further information about jointly owned property please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Real Estate Team.
The European Court of Human Rights has handed down its judgment in four conjoined cases brought by Christian employees, who each claimed that they had been discriminated against by their employers on the grounds of their religion. Professional Support Lawyer Elizabeth Stevens considers the implications of this decision.
These cases involved four Christian employees: two had pursued claims for religious discrimination on the grounds that their employer’s dress code did not allow them to openly display a necklace with a cross (Eweidaand Chaplin); the other two (Ladele and Macfarlane, a Registrar and a relationship counsellor) objected to a requirement to carry out duties which, in their view condoned homosexual activities and were inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
The employees’ claims were all eventually dismissed by the employment tribunals and courts in the UK, so they each brought claims at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against the UK Government, on the grounds that domestic law had failed to adequately protect their right to manifest their religion. They claimed a breach of their rights under Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR has upheld the claim brought by Eweida, but has dismissed the claims of the other three employees.
Eweida and Chaplin
In relation to Eweida and Chaplin, the Court agreed that there had been an interference with both women’s right to manifest their religion, by preventing them from wearing crosses visibly at work.
In Eweida’s case, the Court decided that the UK courts had not struck a fair balance between her desire to manifest her religious belief and to communicate that belief to others on the one hand, and her employer’s (British Airways) wish to project a certain corporate image. The Court noted that other employees had previously been authorised to wear items of religious clothing (such as turbans and hijabs) without any negative impact on BA’s brand or image. It also pointed to the fact that BA had amended its uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery, which the Court considered to show that the earlier prohibition had not been of crucial importance.
The Court therefore concluded, by a majority, that the domestic authorities (the Court of Appeal) had failed to sufficiently protect Eweida’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9.
In Chaplin’s case, however, the Court considered the reason for asking her to remove her cross, namely the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward (she was a nurse), to be inherently of much greater importance. The Court concluded that requiring Chaplin to remove her cross was not disproportionate and that the interference with her freedom to manifest her religion had been necessary in a democratic society.
Ladele and McFarlane
Ladele and McFarlane’s cases involved the interesting issue of when one set of protected rights (religious belief) conflicted with another (sexual orientation).
The Court considered that the policies of their employers (the promotion of equal opportunities and requiring employees to act in a non-discriminatory way), had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the Convention. The Court was satisfied that the right balance had been struck between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The applicants’ claims were therefore dismissed.
Comment
This decision does not mean that employers will have to allow the visible display of religious symbols in every case, but it does mean that employers will have to demonstrate legitimate and justifiable reasons for imposing a dress code that prevents such a display. Eweida’s employer in this case had eventually decided, following consultation with its employees, to amend its dress code to allow religious symbols to be displayed. Rather ironically, this was used as evidence to support the Court’s view that imposing the restriction on any jewellery was not necessary to maintain BA’s corporate image.
Employers who have compulsory dress codes in place should ensure that any requests for flexibility, particularly for religious reasons, are given due consideration on an individual basis and are dealt with sensitively.
It is unlikely that this decision will result in any immediate changes to existing equalities legislation in the UK. The Court, in upholding Eweida’s claim, did not consider that the lack of specific protection under UK law in itself meant that her right to manifest her religion by wearing a religious symbol at work was insufficiently protected. Instead it was the application of the law by the Court of Appeal that had struck the wrong balance and was therefore found to be in breach of her rights.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has announced that in view of this judgment it will be issuing new guidance for employers on the issue of religious freedom in the workplace.
There has been much debate about the demise of HMV and Blockbuster. These two high street entertainment giants were once at the heart of our retail world, much like the mighty Woolworths who were the first of the giants to be slayed over the holiday period of 2008 – 2009.
Some say HMV and Blockbuster should have moved with the times, and that they did not do enough to adapt to their changing customer needs. Whatever the reason for their demise, the harsh reality is that thousands of people face unemployment -irrespective of who or what contributed to the downfall of these retail giants. Between them, HMV and Blockbuster have over 8,000 employees who are facing redundancy.
When administrators are called in, the process is often quite brutal for employees. The knowledge that your employer is in financial difficulty and that your job may not be secure often leaves the employee in a difficult position. In such situations, many employees are made redundant and left feeling that their views and suggestions have not been adequately taken into account or even heard. When it is proposed to make 20 + employees redundant, the affected employees have a legal right to be consulted with. If you fall into this category and have NOT been consulted with then do let us know.
Leathes Prior are willing to meet with the employees of HMV and Blockbuster, or indeed any employee who has been / is being affected by the insolvency of their employer.
Norwich International is delighted to announce that commencing from 4th April; tour operator OSKA-TRAVEL, a member of KENBA Group International will be operating 7 night escorted tours around the Turkish Riviera every Thursday in April.
The luxury break includes guided tours to Antalya, Kemer, Pamukkale, Tava & Perga, overnight accommodation in luxury 4 & 5 star hotels and a buffet breakfast with prices ranging from £249 up to £299 depending on dates. Passengers can have full confidence in their booking as the whole charter is ATOL protected.
Andreas F Forsthuber, Director KENBA Group said “We are really excited to add a regional airport such as Norwich to our portfolio. At KENBA Group we have handled more than 60,000 passengers from 6 different countries in 2012. This high passenger volume together with the support we have experienced from the Turkish tourism industry gives us the opportunity to make low budget trips of a high standard available to the people of East Anglia and to give them more choice from their local airport. We are sure that the region will love this tour. It might well be their first – but it will definitely not be their last trip”.
Andrew Bell, CEO at Norwich International commented “We are delighted that OSKA-TRAVEL have selected to operate their low cost luxury charter breaks from Norwich this April and we are certain this popular destination will prove a hit with our customers. This development further demonstrates the strength of the growth in charter flights from Norwich International this year – our customers now have over twenty direct sun and city destinations to choose from with some of the leading tour operators and airlines”
Mine Aslan, Commercial Director CORENDON Airlines “We look forward to the cooperation with NWI Airport as only with their substantial support are we able to offer this kind of low budget charter services and we hope, that we will have the opportunity to add more flights at a later stage”.
Construction Training Specialists Ltd have one of the widest portfolios of construction based qualifications in the Eastern Region. We have expertise in delivering courses from entry level through to supervisory and management all of which are across a plethora of skill and trade areas. Our flexible approach to industry allows us to move with trends and react to our customers’ needs immediately anywhere within the East of England.
Our Mission Statement: “CTS Limited is committed to raising the skill level of all learners who wish to develop a successful career in the construction industry, doing so by providing a first class delivery and training experience”.
One of our main strengths is the way in which we work with employers to increase the numbers of apprenticeships on offer to young people in this area. We are currently working with over 80 young apprentices and their employers to give them the skills, knowledge and experience to start their careers in the construction industry.
It is our partnerships with other organisations such as Adult Education, Broadland Council Training Services and Construction Skills that enable us to offer funded training to the unemployed, self employed and employed people, with many qualifications and courses on offer to help people achieve recognised qualifications to further their career options.
Funding available for Apprenticeships and Experienced Workers see attached information leaflet for further information.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal finds that a dismissal for redundancy following maternity leave was not necessarily unfair. Employment solicitor Sam Greehalgh and trainee solicitor Laura Tanguay report.
The claimant in this case was employed part time as a manager in the respondent company’s sales and marketing department. The claimant went on maternity leave and upon returning to work she was asked to attend a meeting with her manager. During the meeting, the claimant’s manager was alleged to have said: “I will cut to the chase on this one … as you have been off for what is it, a year or so and we have managed without you we are considering making the position of part-time marketing manager or whatever redundant. Your work has been absorbed by other members of your team”. The claimant was subsequently dismissed for redundancy.
The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of her maternity leave.
The employment tribunal concluded that the claimant had been unlawfully discriminated against and unfairly dismissed because the reason for dismissal was connected to the claimant’s maternity leave; she was the only person singled out for redundancy.
The respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”).
The EAT Decision
The EAT upheld the respondent’s appeal and remitted the case to the tribunal for a further hearing.
According to the EAT, the tribunal erred in concluding that there was a discriminatory dismissal, as it failed to ask the relevant questions, namely: (a) whether the reason or principal reason for dismissal was redundancy; (b) whether the circumstances of the redundancy applied equally to employees holding similar positions who had not been dismissed; and (c) whether the reason or principal reason for the dismissal was connected to the fact that the claimant took maternity leave.
The EAT was satisfied that both (a) and (c) applied in the claimant’s case, but it referred the matter back to the tribunal to deliberate whether (b) also applied. The tribunal needed to consider the precise job descriptions and work carried out by the other three members of the department, to determine whether the claimant should have been pooled with those individuals rather than being singled out for redundancy.
Comment
The scenario that arose in this case is not uncommon, but employers should always tread carefully in carrying out a redundancy exercise involving individuals who are pregnant or on maternity leave.
If a redundancy situation arises during an individual’s maternity leave, that individual must be properly consulted with along with any other affected employees. It is not the case that employees on maternity leave are exempt from being made redundant; however, they have the right to be offered alternative employment in preference to other redundant employees, where any is available. ACAS recently published a guide for employers on managing redundancy for pregnant employees or those on maternity leave, which is available on their website.