The scheme will start with claims for a specified money amount (which make up 80% of small claims), which will include clams by businesses recovering debts from customers. The policy will eventually apply to all claims issued under the standard part 7 procedure of the Civil Procedure Rules.
It is proposed that once a defence is filed and the case allocated to the court’s small claims track, the Court will notify the parties that mediation is the next step, and the case will then progress to HM Courts & Tribunals’ existing small claims mediation service. The parties will have a separate hour long telephone conversation with the Court service’s appointed mediator (the mediation will be free of charge to the parties), and if a settlement is agreed, a legally binding formal agreement will be registered with the court. If an agreement is not reached, the dispute will proceed, and in due course will be heard by a judge. Judges will have the power – and it is not hard to envisage them being encouraged – to impose sanctions on parties that did not comply with the requirement to mediate.

To support the scheme, the government has indicated that he small claims mediation service will be expanded. Future plans to integrate mediation in the court process for higher-value claims will see parties referred to external mediators.

Mediation has of course been a growing area in recent years, and in our experience, and certainly in Multi-Track cases, some form of ADR or mediation is now commonplace. Provided the parties properly engage in the process, and genuinely wish to reach a realistic settlement, it is an effective process which can assist all those involved in litigation in saving costs. For the proposed compulsory small claims mediation process to be effective, it will be vital that the parties have access to a properly trained mediator within a reasonable timescale. Whether or not that proves to be the case, only time will tell.

For further information, please contact a member of our dispute resolution team.

 

FRC are set amounts that the winning party in civil litigation is entitled to recover from the losing party. They are designed to bring predictability to costs exposure/recovery and encourage parties to deal with cases at proportionate cost. In most cases, the FRC regime will apply to claims where proceedings are issued on or after 1 October 2023. For personal injury claims, FRC will apply where the cause of action accrues on or after 1 October 2023.

Although there are limited exceptions, FRC will apply to the vast majority of cases allocated to the fast track and a new “intermediate track”.
The scope of the fast track will remain as it is, and will remain appropriate for claims with a value up to £25,000 where the case can be tried in one day or less and oral expert evidence at trial is limited to two expert fields with one expert per party per field. In claims which seek both monetary and non-monetary relief, the FRC will be calculated by reference to the damages awarded and the assigned value for non-monetary relief.
The new intermediate track is a new track for claims up to £100,000 where the case can be tried in three days or less, with no more than two expert witnesses giving evidence on each side, and the claim is brought by one claimant against one or two defendants, or by two claimants against one defendant. Where the relief sought includes a claim for non-monetary relief, the claim will not usually be allocated to the intermediate track unless the court considers it to be in the interests of justice. Judges will retain discretion to allocate more complex cases valued at under £100,000 to the multi-track (which would take them outside of the FRC regime).
A further change is that the court will also assign cases to a complexity band. Both the fast track and the intermediate track will have four complexity bands (1 to 4 in ascending order of complexity). The higher the band, the greater the fixed costs. Allocation and assignment will be extremely important for parties (given the direct impact on recoverable/payable costs), and whilst the parties’ views on allocation and assignment will be important it will ultimately be a question for the court.
A series of tables in a new Practice Direction 45 set out a menu of fixed costs which apply depending on the stage reached/activity undertaken. The MoJ proposes to review the tables three years post launch.
In both the fast track and intermediate track, the court may allow any disbursement which has been reasonably incurred, as long as there is no double recovery. VAT can also be recovered, where appropriate. Also, the Court will consider a claim for costs in excess of FRC where there are “exceptional circumstances”, but at this stage there is no guidance on what those exceptional circumstances might be. Cases can also be reallocated/reassigned in appropriate circumstances, but these are also likely to be exceptional.
Predictability of costs exposure/recoverability is they key advantage of the new rules, and should help parties weigh up the merits of trial versus settlement. That said, there will inevitably be a period of uncertainty while practitioners, parties and the courts grapple with these new rules. It is also vital to bear in mind that the rules go to costs recoverability. They do not dictate what legal representatives can charge their clients. The actual costs charged may exceed the fixed costs that are recoverable, which would leave the receiving party with a shortfall payable to their lawyers.
One consequence we do expect to see flow from the new rules is parties looking to maximise their costs recovery by including a contractual right to add all their costs to the claim. Other potential approaches will be parties looking at other avenues of dispute resolution in their contracts, such as arbitration.
For more information, please feel free to contact our Dispute Resolution team.

 

As a result, the teacher has been suspended from her employment pending an investigation.

 

The video which was shared online by hunt protesters has now been viewed over 2 million times and has generated enormous criticism as the footage allegedly shows a member of the Cottesmore Hunt in Leicestershire, believed to be Sarah Moulds.

 

Mowbray Education Trust said a staff member – understood to be Sarah Moulds – “has been suspended pending formal investigations”. Owing to the nature of the content of the footage, the RSPCA have confirmed that it was investigating.

 

Ms Moulds has also been removed from a volunteering role she carried out for the Pony Club. It was stated that the behaviour witnessed was entirely inappropriate and inconsistent with the general ethos of wellbeing and welfare supported by the organisation.

 

Generally speaking, an employee’s conduct outside of work is not a matter for the employer unless it adversely impacts the workplace. However, when this does impact upon the employers and its reputation, this would be in the realms of misconduct so the employer could progress matters using its disciplinary policy. If conduct or behaviour brings the employer into disrepute, then any potential dismissal could probably fall under the category of ‘some other substantial reason’, being a potentially fair reason for dismissal.  

 

Any employer should consider drafting a Code of Conduct that clearly establishes the expected standard of behaviour. Then, there should be a social media policy setting out what is and is not acceptable online conduct and the consequences of failing to comply, which may range from warnings to dismissal. In this case, it is the fact that the employee’s actions have been posted to social media that has damaged the employer’s reputation. Also make sure that this type of conduct is expressly mentioned in the disciplinary policy,

 

For employers, it is easy to overestimate the reputational damage that may follow from the conduct outside of work, so remember at all times that any dismissal must be within the range of reasonable responses. Keep in mind that when considering a claim for unfair dismissal, an employment tribunal will consider a number of factors, including whether the actions amounted to misconduct or “some other substantial reason”, whether the employer conducted a fair investigation, whether it considered all other avenues to dismissal, and whether a dismissal on these particular facts was fair.

 

The admission of Gary Ballance regarding the making of inappropriate comments to his former colleague, Azeem Rafiq, has had implications that have rocked this long-established cricket club.

The situation was compounded as the club carried out its own internal investigation and found that there was no conduct or action taken by any of its employee, players or executives that warranted disciplinary action. This was despite a number of allegations made being upheld.

The outcome has been that many of Yorkshire Cricket Club’s sponsors have severed links with the club and there have been call from many, including Julian Knight MP, Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee for the Board to resign.

There are a number of issues here. Firstly, the situation should never have arisen in the first place. The conduct, which would inevitably have been witnessed by others should have been addressed and stopped immediately. However, the situation should never have been allowed to develop in the first instance. Creating a work culture which promotes equality and diversity, free from harassment must be in place and any employer must ensure that this culture is fully embraced by all as a starting point. If you achieve this then the further problems of bullying and harassment simply will not arise. What has historically been termed as “Banter” is not acceptable. The reputation of the club has been seriously tarnished, with Azeem Rafiq and officials of the club now being called before Parliament. The ECB are being pressed to take action.

Now imagine if this was your business. Look at your culture and promote equality and diversity through policies, procedures and positive reinforcement. Ongoing training and the cascading of the principles of the required culture must be instilled in all employees. If a situation does arise, don’t bury your head in the sand, but address it head on and limit the damage if you can. It may already be too late, but if you have taken all reasonable steps to avoid this problem, you may have provided yourself with a defence to any claim. Failure to act could lead to a claim for discrimination and/harassment which can be unlimited in terms of an award from an Employment Tribunal.

If you need any advice or guidance on how your business may address theses issues, please contact me on PB@nexussolicitors.co.uk

In short, if a company falls into insolvency, for debts such as PAYE, employee NICs, and VAT, HMRC will get a bite of the cherry ahead of floating charge creditors and unsecured creditors.  Floating charge creditors can include banks that lend against debts or other assets.  Unsecured creditors can include company pension schemes, and the company’s suppliers.

Despite what HM Government might say about increased recoveries from insolvencies and lessening the taxpayer burden, some suggest that the move will cause any available cash to dry up; that UK companies will find it harder to borrow as lenders and financiers will be less willing to risk giving credit.

Interestingly, HMRC has been a preferential creditor in insolvencies before, but, presumably for the good of the UK companies, that was reversed some years ago.  This reinstatement has understandably caused some concern across the banking and insolvency professions, and UK companies.

There is no doubt that HM Government will be looking to do what it can to replenish the UK coffers in light of the impact of Covid-19, but whether reinstatement of HMRC’s preferential status is the way, remains to be seen.

If you are a director or creditor of a company and would like to discuss this further, please get in touch with Andrew Tonge on 07771803759 or ato@nexussolicitors.co.uk