P&O Ferries – the importance of obtaining legal advice

Since last week, P&O Ferries has been all over the headlines for seemingly all the wrong reasons. Their mass sacking of 800 staff without following the correct procedure of going through a proper consultation period, with the intention of hiring cheaper, non-UK workers instead, was met with outrage at the blatant breach of UK law.  Yet they seem set to get away with it, as government ministers and newspapers condemn the actions while simultaneously acknowledging that it seems there is little they can do.  In return, the ferry company has substantially reduced its operating costs in a matter of days, potentially saving the business many thousands of pounds.

This is not luck.

Thorough and detailed legal advice would have been sought, and a quick and comparatively cheap solution provided. This solution drew on the fact that substantial parts of the company operated in international waters or were registered overseas, minimising the influence of UK employment laws. The suddenness of the move also meant that no union action could take place to delay or draw out the process, again keeping costs down. The settlement packages offered to the employees have also proved effective, as they are reasonably generous, and the vast majority of the workers have accepted them, seeing settling as preferable to a protracted legal challenge which could leave them with nothing.

This style of approach clearly has potential advantages for companies needing to cut costs quickly, but it is undoubtedly also a high-stakes gamble. One which P&O Ferries may yet lose.

Public relations and brand image form a significant part of the worth of a company. They have a value, albeit one that is hard to quantify, and they contribute significantly to the success and failure of a company.

The public outcry against P&O Ferries has been huge, and while the company’s move has increased their money-making potential in the short term, they may well have paid for this in the long-term by sacrificing their public image. Only time will tell.

P&O Ferries may have flown too close to the sun with their dismissals. However, it is possible that had this been done on a smaller scale and attracted less public attention, it may well have flown completely under the radar, leaving the company’s brand unscathed and with a healthier bottom line.

The brazenness of their move has rightly prompted calls for a review of employment laws. As we have seen, this area is already a potential minefield for employers and employees alike, and may well change soon in light of recent events. Expert and up-to-date legal advice is therefore crucial for knowing your rights and making sound business decisions.

Charters School Careers Fair – Friday 18 March 2022

This month, Aston Bond attended the Charters School careers fair. This was a great opportunity to help the year 9 to 13’s in deciding their next steps in life.

We talked to lots of students throughout the day about what day to day life is like for a solicitor in law firm, and the routes to qualifying as a solicitor with the introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Exams (the ‘’SQE’’).  The SQEs are the new form of exams you must now take to qualify as a solicitor. Many students were especially surprised to learn you do not need a law degree to qualify as a solicitor. Students gained a lot of useful tips on what to do during your route to qualifying as a solicitor, such as getting lots of work experience! Students learned the difference between solicitors and barristers and we sat on the panel of a number of Q&A sessions  at which students had the opportunity to ask us questions.  They also got to learn lots about the general balance of working life, not only for solicitors but from other career representatives which attended the fair.

We were so impressed by the enthusiasm, interest and the warm welcome we received from all at Charters School and hope to visit again soon.

 

Change ahead – Reforms on Pre-Action Conduct

What you need to do before you take matters to court

Before anyone can bring a claim to the UK Civil Courts, there are certain steps that must be taken to demonstrate to the court that you have taken reasonable action to try and resolve things yourself. These steps are called Pre-Action Protocols and are intended to ‘’explain the conduct and set out the steps the court would normally expect parties to take before commencing proceedings’’.

If your dispute has no case-specific Pre-Action Protocol, then the Practice Direction Pre-action Conduct applies. There are specific Pre-Action Protocols for various types of claims such as:

  • Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims
  • Pre-Action Protocol for the Construction and Engineering Disputes

 

What happens if I haven’t completed these steps?

There can potentially be serious consequences for both claimants and defendants for failing to comply with the Pre-action Conduct and Protocols or any relevant protocol to a claim. These can include the Court not allowing your claim to progress further until there has been compliance, and you may also incur additional cost penalties.

 

The future of Pre-Action Protocols

In November 2021 the Civil Justice council (CJC) considered a review of the Pre-Action Protocols, thinking about the role Pre-Action Protocols should play in the civil justice system in the 2020s particularly in a justice system which is increasingly digitalising.

Three major reforms considered are:

  • Making all Pre-Action Protocols available online via portals

This would also include ensuring the portals are electronically joined up to the relevant court so that non-confidential pre-action exchanges, including pre-action letters of claim and replies would be accessible to the court if the matter progresses to litigation.

Linking online portals on pre-action compliance to digital court process will allow the courts to have access to the pre-action correspondence and documents exchanged between parties and may also be able to provide parties with a secure platform in which they can freely explore settlement options.

 

  • Introducing a good faith obligation

This would try to resolve or narrow the dispute at the pre-action stage. Options for a good faith obligation could include engaging in formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, informal negotiations between the parties, or formal settlement offers.

Does the introduction of compulsory ADR conflict with Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights? The future obligation of compulsory ADR must provide a balance of being able to effectively resolve disputes with the option of being able to return to the normal court process. The CJC believe the civil justice system is far off from being able to offer regulated and timely ADR processed to all prospective litigants, and until they are available, any good faith obligation to resolve a pre-litigation dispute should be non-regulatory.

 

  • Formally recognising compliance would be mandatory with Pre-Action Protocols

Compliance could become mandatory except in urgent cases where immediate court action is necessary.

Extending the courts power for compliance issues will enable a more consistent and timely approach to non-compliance with Pre-Action Protocols. For example, the current Practice Direction on Pre-Action Protocol expressly gives the court power when considering a costs order to consider if there has been an unreasonable offer to refuse a form of ADR. However, there is inconsistency case by case in the way in which the courts apply this power.

The CJC have suggested formalising the process for raising compliance issues by introducing a separate directions questionnaire on compliance or requiring parties to apply to the court for sanctions to be imposed for non-compliance. It has also been suggested a decision by the courts on whether to impose a sanction should be taken at the start of proceedings rather than the end.

 

Revolutionary or evolutionary?

The reforms build on the existing rules and procedures set out in the current Pre-Action Protocols. However, the proposed reforms attempt to provide more concrete guidance, consistency and accessibility with the integration of technology for pre-litigation matters. Encouragement of early exchange of information and settlement is greater than before with the mandatory use of online protocol portals and a form of ADR before a claim could be bought.

Help to Build

We are all familiar with Help to Buy – a government-backed scheme which helps first time buyers purchase a new-build home with just a 5% deposit. However, it is now time to become familiar with Help to Build.

Unlike Help to Buy, Help to Build aims to help those seeking to commission or build their own home and helps builders with cash flow during the build. More and more individuals have ambitions to build their own home, as they have the freedom to decide on the design, internal layout and location. The main barrier to doing so however, being finding the money to fund the project. Help to Build aims to eradicate this barrier so that these ambitions are achievable and self-build homes are more accessible and affordable.

What is Help to Build?

Help to Build is a new government equity loan, announced back in April 2021, that will be available to people in England who want to custom build or self-build their own home.

An equity loan is offered, between 5% and 20% (up to 40% in London), based on the total estimated costs to buy a plot of land and build the home. If eligible, up to £600,000 can be spent on the new home, which must include the cost of the land if not already owned and no more than £400,000 on the cost to build. The loan is interest free for five years.

A minimum of a 5% deposit will be needed and a self-build mortgage, which must be provided by a lender registered with Help to Build. Funds will be released at various stages of the build until the build is complete, at which point the mortgage will automatically switch to a repayment mortgage which must be in place for the duration of the equity loan, normally 25 years.

The redemption amount is based on the value of the home at the time chosen to repay and is not linked to the amount initially borrowed. Therefore, if the market value of the home increases above the estimated land and build costs, the amount owed on the loan will increase and vice versa if the market value decreases.

If the equity loan is offered, the purchase of the land (if needed) and the build of the home must complete within a span of 3 years.

Who is eligible?

Anyone who is 18 years of age or over and has a right to live in England, the newly built home will be their only home and they have secured a self-build mortgage from a lender registered with Help to Build.

Application Process

The scheme is still in the initial stages and relatively new. Whilst it was previously believed that applications will open for Help to Build last year during winter, it does not appear this was the case. However, while the exact date has not yet been announced, it is only a matter of time before the scheme is up and running. To be first in line for more information, register your interest in Help to Build here.

For further information on the Help to Build: Equity Loan scheme, please click here to be redirected to the Gov.uk page.

Video Witnessing Will Signings Extended To 2024

Under Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, there should always be two witnesses present during the physical signing of the Will with the testator (the person who has made the Will). The witnesses would also be required to sign the Will in the testator’s presence to validate the document. These rules have been key pillars in the process of validating a Will until the Covid-19 pandemic brought about unprecedented change. As the death rates began to increase, restrictions were put in place by the government, which lead to the elderly population being forced into self-isolation. Suddenly, the need for valid Wills to be made in a timely and efficient manner became a priority.

As a result, new legislation was introduced in 2020 broadening the definition of the witnesses needing to be “in the presence of”, to include video conferencing and “other visual transmission”. This was subsequently backdated to January 2020 and kept in place until January 2022. The government has recently announced that it has extended the legislation till January 2024.

So, why has this legislation been extended when only 14% of solicitors who drafted Wills during lockdown took part in remote witnessing? According to reports from the Law Society, the option to remote witness has proved helpful amongst vulnerable people who need to set their affairs in order and cannot afford to do so in a physical capacity. This legislation was created to support those who are isolating, vulnerable or incapacitated by further restrictions, and has seemingly achieved this goal. However, “video conferencing” to witness and validate a Will is not without its complications.

One of the risks a solicitor must be aware of is that the testator could lose their mental capacity to validate the Will over time. If the testator is not in a proper capacity to sign their Will, it would be difficult to tell this through a screen. There could also be a chance that undue influence is at play by someone off-camera and out of sight during the signing. Unfortunately, there is no concrete way of confirming that the testator is alone and/or uninfluenced over a video call.

There is also a risk of documents going missing in the post. A Will is only valid once it is signed by the testator and both witnesses. If the Will is lost in the post before being signed by the witnesses it will need to be re-signed, causing unnecessary delays. If there is a delay between the testator and the witnesses’ signings, there is a high probability that the testator (especially a vulnerable person) could die before the Will is completed.

It is important to note that although video witnessing is a legal method to validate your Will, it is not the most secure. There is a potential risk of fraud. If a third party posts or delivers the Will, there is a risk they could replace certain pages or the Will in its entirety. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) have also stressed that the “the use of video technology should remain a last resort, and people must continue to arrange physical witnessing of wills where it is safe to do so.” There are several ways in which Wills can be witnessed, such as witnessing through a window, carpark witnessing or from another room in the property.

Here at Aston Bond, we believe validating any Will is a matter of great importance and for that reason we encourage signing your Wills in person at our offices or via a home visit. It is imperative to confirm that the testator has full mental capacity and is not being coerced or pressured to sign the Will in any way. We would recommend that other options should be explored before relying on video witnessing.

For more information on making valid Wills through using video conferencing, you can check out:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-making-wills-using-video-conferencing#video-witnessing

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact myself at kkumari@astonbond.co.uk or Rachel Jones at rjones@astonbond.co.uk

No sick pay for unvaccinated staff

The tensions surrounding people’s choice on whether to have the vaccine or not has recently had a lot of airtime. Few have missed the problems being unvaccinated has caused to Novak’s career recently when his visa was repealed in Australia.

Ikea have also now weighed in with the announcement that they will be cutting company sick pay for those employees who are not double-jabbed. Indeed, although Ikea has received the most publicity for this, other companies have also announced a similar intention.

Ikea’s reasoning for this is that staffing levels currently are a great concern and those who are not double-jabbed have to self-isolate if they have come into close contact with someone who has Covid. This could mean that a considerable proportion of staff would have to be off work without even being ill but purely due to the fact they have not had their double vaccinations. The company has said that throughout the pandemic it had not furloughed staff and those self-isolating had received full pay. Company sick pay is that over and above the required statutory sick pay which is currently set at £96.50 per week. But it is in fact common for the entitlement to company sick pay to have some conditions attached (such as the requirement to see a company-appointed doctor as required). However, the aim of this recent change is for Ikea to be able to keep its stores open and running effectively, which it is currently struggling to do. Ikea has been at pains to point out that this will not be a blanket approach however and that they will consider each and every case individually. In truth, that is the only way they would be able to avoid potential claims of disability or other discrimination. There are those who cannot have the vaccinations or have medical reasons for not having them.

In legal terms, the decision will fall to managers to consider any mitigating circumstances. No doubt they will be supported by HR but training on issues to consider in these circumstances is essential. The proposed changes will also need to be implemented correctly to avoid any allegations that such changes are a breach of employee’s contracts.

The decision is bound to be a controversial one but, implemented in the correct way, is not necessarily an illegal one. Ikea have a legitimate aim which is to avoid too many staff members being off work, especially unnecessarily so. The question as to whether their actions are proportionate will no doubt be closely scrutinised and may well end up being the subject of a challenge later on. it will also be interesting to see how many other companies adopt a similar approach. But irrespective of the legalities, some will no doubt argue that this is yet another way of adding pressure for those that have chosen not to be vaccinated.

Jade Gani winner of the Young Practitioner of the Year at the STEP awards

We are extremely proud to announce that our very own Jade Gani was the winner of the Young Practitioner of the Year at the STEP awards last night.

 STEP is the global professional association for those advising families across generations.  Jade, and the private client team as a whole, have worked particularly hard during the past few years, especially during the pandemic, and this recognition is very much deserved.

The Judges said: In a very strong field, our winner stood out not only for their considerable professional accomplishments but for their selfless commitment to others through their pro-bono and charitable efforts. They devoted significant time, energy and passion to those less fortunate. During a year when many were challenged, they rose above the fray in several ways, including providing free wills for NHS staff.

The awards have been described by notable practitioners as:-

 “The very best in the private client industry – everyone appreciates that the entries are genuinely and fully scrutinised and independently and rigorously judged – worth winning in other words!” (Ceris Gardner TEP, Maurice Turnor Gardner LLP)

“The Oscars of our industry and the one all of us wish to win. Clients, staff and competitors all look to these awards as a measure of quality.” (Mark McMullen, Stonehage Fleming)

Stephen Puri, Aston Bond CEO commented:

“We are delighted for Jade. She continues to work hard and strive for the very best and this result is testament to her commitment to work and clients alike.”

Aston Bond Shortlisted for The British Wills and Probate Awards 2021

We are delighted to announce that our Private Client team continue to build on their successes and have been shortlisted for two awards at the British Wills & Probate Awards 2021.

Background

Last year, our Head of Private Client, Jade Gani, won the ‘Young Practitioner of the Year’ Award at the national British Wills & Probate Awards 2020. This award was a crowning moment for our team as Jade secured the win against formidable competition from much larger, highly regarded firms, namely Shoosmiths and Morrisons Solicitors.

Since then, the department has gone from strength to strength. The team won the ‘Best Community Contribution” Award at the Probate Research Awards 2021, which recognised our dedication to the local community as well as our charity work. Ilinca Mardarescu, Director, also won the ‘Unsung Hero’ Award for all the unwavering support she provides to the department and the firm as a whole.

Jade’s national success has even extended globally as she is a finalist for the ‘Young Practitioner of the Year’ at the 2021 STEP Private Client Awards. The winner of this award will be announced via a virtual ceremony on 23 September 2021.

British Wills & Probate Awards 2021

At this year’s prestigious British Wills and Probate Awards 2021, we are excited to announce that Aston Bond have been shortlisted for ‘Probate Provider of the Year (Small Firms)’, alongside fellow shortlisters, Farewill Ltd and Sterling Trust Law Corporation Limited. Only the firms and practitioners who excel in the field will be awarded the winning spot.

The firm’s shortlisting for ‘Probate Provider of the Year’ required us to:-

  1. Demonstrate the ability to deliver high standards of service and support to clients;
  2. Show that they provide real benefits to clients and strategic partners;
  3. Show that they work consistently to improve efficiencies and reduce costs for all parties;
  4. Show innovation in developing and bringing to market new service offerings; and
  5. Show they adopt the best philosophy to client integration.

In relation to Aston Bond’s nomination for the Probate Provider of the Year, Director Ilinca Mardarescu said:-

“We are so proud of everything that the whole team has achieved.  They are going from strength to strength and we feel that this is testament to their passion for the work they are doing.  They genuinely care about helping our clients in the very best way possible.”

Jade also received several nominations for Today’s Wills and Probate Industry Champion; a new category introduced this year to recognise those who have made contribution to the sector for the better. The wider sector nominated individuals outside of their own organisations and we are proud to say that Jade’s nominations were impressive enough to see her shortlisted with other remarkable members of the industry.

Every nomination had to provide the following:-

  1. A demonstration of how they put their client’s interests at the forefront of everything they do;
  2. Evidence of how they have excelled at dealing with the transition to a remote working environment; and
  3. A demonstration that they have overcome challenges with minimal disruption to the outcome of their work.

When asked about her nomination for the award, Jade replied with the following:-

“I am a little in shock. It was overwhelming to win the Young Practitioner Award last year, but to be recognised amongst the entire industry is something I could only dream of, until now! I have looked up to Michael, Ian and Holly for a long time; seeing my name up there with them makes me feel proud of my journey and even more determined to strive to be the best I can for my team and clients. Each of them are worthy winner in my eyes.”

It is now up to a public vote to decide the winner of this category, which is open until 27th September 2021. If you would like to vote for your chosen winner, you can do so here:- https://www.britishwillsandprobateawards.co.uk/industry-champion-award/

The winners will be announced at a hybrid event on Thursday 21 October 2021.

The Tribunal’s failure to take judicial notice of childcare disparity

In the judgement of Dobson v North Cumbria NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Employment Tribunal (ET) failed to consider that women, because of their childcare responsibilities, are less likely to be able to accommodate flexible working, including working on the weekends, than men. The EAT referred to this as “childcare disparity” and accepted that the burden of childcare falls disproportionately on women, affecting their ability to adapt to certain working patterns.

After twenty years, the courts and tribunals have taken judicial notice of this disparity and the EAT concluded that the childcare disparity should have been accepted by the tribunal in Dobson v North Cumbria.

Mrs Dobson worked for the North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust as a community trust. She was working two consistent days a week, but following a review, she was asked to work flexibly, including at weekends. Mrs Dobson was unable to commit to this arrangement because of her caring responsibilities for her three children, two of whom are disabled.

Mrs Dobson’s employment was terminated, and she subsequently bought indirect sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and victimisation claims. The ET dismissed her claims but she subsequently appealed with the help of Working Families, who intervened and raised the issue of whether the ET should have taken judicial notice of childcare disparity between men and women.

Recently, the EAT found that the ET had erred in limiting the pool for comparison to the team in which the claimant worked and instead confirmed the appropriate pool was all community nurses across the Trust. The EAT also found the ET to have erred in finding no group advantage.  The ET should have taken judicial notice of the fact that women, because of their childcare responsibilities, are less likely to be able to accommodate flexible working patterns. The EAT’s conclusions meant that the ET’s decision needed to be reconsidered.

A similar decision was made by the EAT in Hughes v Progressive Support Limited where Mrs Hughes’s employment was not terminated, but her employer said that her contract would be changed to a zero-hours contract if she did not work the hours her employer requested. The EAT found there was indirect sex discrimination if an employer asks an employee to work certain hours, regardless of their childcare responsibilities, even if no penalty was imposed against the employee.

The recent case law makes it clear that certain working patterns and associated rules imposed by employers can disproportionately impact certain groups.  Employers will now need to be conscious of how the issue of childcare disparity can (disproportionately) affect certain groups of its employees.

For any assistance with this issue or any employment-related matter, please contact our Head of Employment Ilinca Mardarescu.

Does philosophical belief justify gender discrimination?

Gender critical theory, the idea that sex should not be conflated with gender identity, is now protected as a philosophical belief under s10 of the Equality Act. The implications this has for the workplace resides on whether beliefs that can be considered discriminatory against specific groups, can be legally protected as a “characteristic”.

Back in 2019, Maya Forstater claims she was unfairly discriminated against by her workplace, the thinktank Center for Global Development (CGD), over tweets she made in response to the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Employees at the CGD complained that her tweets were “transphobic”, and her contract was not renewed.

The first Tribunal ruled that gender-critical beliefs do not satisfy the Grainger criterion, as these beliefs do not respect human dignity or the “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering” and are therefore excluded from protection.

Despite this, it was allowed to be appealed to the EAT, believing that the first Tribunal had made an error in its application of Grainger. The criteria will generally protect all philosophical beliefs unless they cross a line into something akin to fascism. With this, the EAT judged that whilst Ms Forstater holds views that may be considered offensive to some, they would not be excluded from protection under the Equality Act. According to the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s final judgement, beliefs that honestly express personal beliefs without actively inciting hate or harassment must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

However, it stressed that transgender people still have equal rights in the workplace, as the ruling has not “expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate”. Anything crossing the line into hate speech can be justifiably restricted under Article 9(2) or Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The difference between holding a belief and expressing it raises several questions as to whether the specific philosophy is dangerous to specific groups. The EAT judgement maintained that intentionally misgendering someone with the intention to cause offence is still prohibited and it is not giving those with gender-critical beliefs impunity.

Therefore, whilst this may be seen as a lack of progress for those campaigning for better workplace protection for trans people, their rights are still equally upheld under the Equality Act.  For an employer, finding the right balance between two opposing rights such as these will be the real a challenge.

 

For any assistance with this issue or any employment-related matter, please contact our Head of Employment Ilinca Mardarescu