Over 80 business professionals attended the Friday ‘Curry Club’ networking event organised by the law firm , hosted at The Saffron restaurant in the heart of Ellesmere Port.

Speaking about the response to their first event, Richard Burnett, Client Development Manager at Hillyer McKeown said: “We’re delighted with the response from the local business community. Our objective was to bring together the business community in order to create opportunities for key collaborations and business growth. We surveyed all those who attended the event and we’ve been overwhelmed by comments of support. 100% of businesses surveyed said they would attend the event again and we’ve recognised a real appetite for business networking in the area. We look forward to announcing further events later in the year.”

Anne Davies, Business Director at Bridge Enterprises and member of the Ellesmere Port Development Board said: “It was great to see such large numbers attending the networking event. I think it’s excellent that Hillyer McKeown have taken steps to create this platform for business networking in Ellesmere Port and I personally really enjoyed the event.”

Another business professional that attended the event was Elaine Crozier from Chartered Accountants, Johnstone Howell & Co who said: “As a local business it was great for us to have the opportunity to network with other Ellesmere Port businesses – there was a great vibe at the event and we made some valuable contacts which have created some interesting business opportunities for the firm.”

The Government says it has streamlined the system to reduce some of the burden on employers and reduce the number of vexatious claims.

The main changes are:

• The qualifying period for claiming unfair dismissal rises from one to two years
• Judges will be able to sit alone in unfair dismissal cases
• Witness statements can be provided in writing as opposed to the current rules where a witness reads their own statement out aloud
• The maximum level for costs awarded to businesses winning a vexatious tribunal claim will rise from £10,000 to £20,000. Deposit orders required by claimants when a judge determines that part of a claim is unmerited will increase from £500 to £1,000.

The Government says it will also publish the average value of awards and the time taken to reach a hearing. This will give both parties a greater understanding of what to expect from the tribunal process.

Ministers say the changes will provide direct net savings to businesses of £10m a year as well as wider benefits to employers of more than £40m a year.

Business secretary Vince Cable said: “For too long now the system in place for employment tribunals has been a bloated and bureaucratic obstacle for employers and the taxpayer. For employers they were finding that weak and vexatious cases were too much of the norm, too easy to bring forward, while for the taxpayer they were proving ever more expensive to run.

“We have seen claims drop in the last year and we want to see this continue as we introduce alternative measures in the coming months helping both parties resolve workplace disputes.”

Please contact us if you would like more information about the changes to the tribunal service, or any aspect of employment law.

The case involved an agency that sold car breakdown policies on behalf of an insurance company.

The insurers came to believe that the agency had not accounted fully to it for its premiums and had provided false information. It began legal proceedings and obtained an interim injunction preventing the agency from disposing of its assets.

However, within a week of the injunction being granted, the insurers alleged that the agency had transferred all its assets to a new business. The transfer included everything from its website and its premises and staff.

The insurers considered that everything of value had been moved out of the agency. This meant that any judgment against the agency would be worthless as it wouldn’t have any assets.

The court held that the actions of both the director and the shareholder constituted a wilful interference with the injunction.

The judge also pointed out that a company director could be in contempt not only for what he did, but also for what he failed to do. A director had a duty to take steps to ensure that a court order was obeyed. If he wilfully failed to those steps, as in this case, he could be punished for contempt.

Therefore, a director could be liable for civil contempt in this specific way without necessarily being in contempt under general law.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of company law.

This can prove costly, as shown in a recent case before the High Court.

It involved two businessmen, Karim Dhanani and Serge Crasnianski, who discussed setting up a private equity fund together. They signed a letter and term sheet under which it was envisaged that Mr Crasnianski would provide money for a fund to be managed by Mr Dhanani.

However, the relationship became strained and Mr Crasnianski decided not to proceed with the project. Mr Dhanani took legal action saying that the letter and term sheet was a binding agreement on both of them to play their part in setting up a fund.

The High Court held that it was clear that the two parties had intended to create legal relations. A “reasonable businessman” would have understood that the main terms of the fund had been agreed in the term sheet and that each party was obliged to do his part to bring about the formation of the fund.

However, there was so much still to be agreed that the letter and term sheet in reality only amounted to an “agreement to agree”.

Such an agreement was not recognised by the law as being legally enforceable. Mr Dhanani’s claim was therefore dismissed.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of contract law.

When a person is declared bankrupt, the courts will assess their income and decide how much they can afford to pay their creditors each month, usually for a period of three years until the bankruptcy is discharged.

Income from pensions already being taken can be used to pay creditors but until now, a pension that was not yet being taken was generally considered untouchable.

That has now changed following the case of a 59-year-old bankrupt with a pension fund of £1m. He was eligible to take the pension but had elected not to do so.

It meant that if he waited the three years until his bankruptcy was discharged before taking the pension, it could not be used to pay his creditors. The trustees in the bankruptcy argued that this was unfair and applied to the High Court for permission to access the pension.

The application was granted by the judge, Bernard Livesey QC, who said that it was an unacceptable anomaly that a person who had decided to take his pension would be liable to pay, whereas a person who had elected to wait would not be liable.

The ruling means that a bankrupt in this situation can be obliged to take his pension which can then become eligible to be used for paying creditors.

There are some safeguards. The untouched pension fund can only be accessed if the bankrupt person has reached the qualifying age to claim it. It means the pension funds of people who aren’t yet old enough to qualify remain beyond the reach of creditors.

Mr Livesey also made it clear that a bankruptcy order of this kind should not be made if it left the bankrupt with an income that was less than reasonable for his domestic needs.

He said: “The court will evaluate what is fair and just between the competing interests of, in particular, the bankrupt and his creditors and make an order which is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.”

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of credit control and debt recovery.