Hillyer McKeown Blog

Fears over red tape prevent businesses expanding

Many firms are choosing not to expand because of concerns over complex regulations, according to research by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB).

A survey of its members showed that 27% of those who wanted to expand did not go ahead because they are afraid of tackling the regulations involved. The same survey revealed that half of the businesses planning to downsize or close said their decision was strongly influenced by regulatory burdens.

The FSB has called on the Government to put a freeze on all new regulations – a move it estimates would help to create 258,000 jobs and prevent a further 55,000 from being lost.

The Government has given no indication that it is prepared to introduce a freeze although it says it has saved businesses £3bn a year through its programme to simplify regulations and remove unnecessary paperwork.

In spite of this, small businesses are spending a total of £12bn a year on complying with various regulations, according to research by the Forum of Private Business (FPB).

A recent FPB survey of its members shows that employers in small to medium sized firms are spending an average of 37 hours a month on compliance.

Employment law provides the greatest challenge and costs small businesses £2.4bn a year dealing with issues such as dismissals and redundancy, discipline, absence controls and management, parental leave and holidays.

Health and safety administration costs £1.2bn and small firms also find themselves bogged down in tax administration, building and property regulations, and equality and diversity.

The costs seem enormous when quoted in this way and it’s not surprising that many firms will try to save money by dealing with these issues in-house. However, it is usually more cost-effective and safer to get good legal advice to ensure that compliance matters are dealt with quickly and correctly.

This can save money in the long term and reduce the risk of creating problems unnecessarily – particularly in the area of employment law where failure to follow the correct procedures can lead to costly tribunal claims.

Please contact us on 01244 318131 to speak to one of our expert solicitors if you would like more information about compliance with the various regulations affecting business.

Brits top online shopping poll in Europe
Research suggests that UK shoppers spent more online than anywhere else in Europe last year and accounted for almost a third of all European sales.
UK consumers spent £38bn online in 2009, averaging £1,102 per shopper . According to the Centre for Retail Research (CRR) online sales now account for almost 10% of total retail sales in the UK. Germans were the next most prolific spenders online last year with a total spend of £29.7bn, while the French spent £22bn.
The centre forceats total online sales in the UK hitting £42.7bn this year. The amount of online shoppers in the UK is likely to increase now that they can spend more on the internet from stores in non-EU countries before being charged duty.
Previously HM Revenue and Customs charged customs duty on items bought online or through mail order if the package had a value of £120 or more. This has now been increased to £135. Smokers can also now bring as many cigarettes as they like into the UK for personal use from Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania and Estonia.

Directors Beware – Personal Liability in Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The Court held in the case of Invertec Ltd v De Mol Holding BV and Anor [2009] EWHC 2471 (Ch) that a company had made fraudulent misrepresentations during the due diligence phase of a company acquisition. As the person who had made the fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of the company, and the person who had been the sole negotiator and signed the transaction documents on behalf of the company, the director of the selling company was found personally liable for the damages awarded.
Invertec were awarded damages in the sum of £1,512,113.00 in respect of the initial consideration paid for the company’s shares together with £532,000 in respect of the consequential losses suffered as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of providing accurate and detailed disclosure in the disclosure letter which in turn will provide protection to the selling company from a breach of warranty claim or a defence to such a claim. This decision further highlights the fact that the Courts are not afraid to attach personal liability in cases where a Director is found to have made fraudulent misrepresentations.

Acceptance of offers out of time

During the course of proceedings, it is usual for parties to enter into settlement negotiations, and a good tactician can use this to their advantage to put undue pressure on the other party. Once an offer has expired, provided it has not been accepted by the other party, you would expect that they would be barred out of accepting the offer at a later date. Unless the offer has been formally withdrawn, this is in fact not the case.

The Court in the case of Sampla v Rushmoor Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2616, reiterated that in cases where a Part 36 offer has been rejected previously, or where an offeree has made a counteroffer or has simply failed to respond to the original offer within the time limits stated therein, the Court can give permission to the offeree to accept the offer out of time unless it is formally withdrawn. There are exceptions to this rule, in particular where there has been a significant shift in both parties’ perception in the outcome of the case or where a trial may be almost at an end, thereby resulting in only minimal savings to the parties.

This case is indicative of the Court’s attitude towards encouraging settlement, however parties are warned that whilst a Court, in principle can give permission to a party to accept an offer out of time, there is no guarantee that it will be given particularly if it would not be just and fair to do so given the circumstances of the case. Parties are warned not to

Parties should therefore not become complacent and give due to consideration to offers when they are received. Parties should equally be alive to the prospect that offers of settlement which are not formally withdrawn may be accepted by a party at a later stage in the proceedings, at which time the offer may not be so beneficial to the person offering.

As January is the known for being the busiest month for Divorce proceedings to get underway we thought we should dispel some of the most common misconceptions.

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

Mothers always succeed in disputes over the children

In family proceedings it is quite common for parents to share the residence of the children with them spending an equal amount of time with the two parents. This often depends on the father’s availability to look after the children and to be able to continue working.

Common Law Marriage

There is no such thing as “Common Law Marriage” as it was abolished in 1753.

Many couples that co-habit are under the mistaken impression that after one year or three years living together that they have the same rights as a married couple.

Pre-nuptial Agreements are not legally enforceable

Pre-nuptial Agreements are not legally binding in the UK, but if they have been properly drawn up, the Family Courts will attached a great deal of weight to the Agreements within divorce proceedings.

If I institute the Divorce Proceedings I will obtain a better financial settlement

This is not the case except in extremely rare cases, so it does not matter who divorces who or on what ground when the finances are decided by the Court.

There is always a 50/50 split of assets on divorce

Although the starting point in many divorces is splitting the assets 50/50, there are cases for example after a short marriage or where there are very limited assets where one party will obtain more than 50%.