|
International Trade Newsletter |
|
|
Marine Leisure Industry The Marine Leisure Industry Group of the Haven Gateway Partnership has commissioned the Akenham Partnership to conduct two studies into the marine leisure industry in the sub-region. The first assesses the economic importance of the marine leisure industry to the sub-region and the second considers the skills needed in the sector. Despite the presence of names such as Oyster, Fairline and Spirit Yachts, the marine leisure industry can often be forgotten, and these studies are designed to identify the number of people employed, the types of service provided and the support it needs. Those interested in getting involved in the study are encouraged to contact Alex Davey, who is chairman of the Marine Leisure Industry group. Bully-boy tactics Until now, victims of bullying (where there is no straight claim of discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation etc.) have had significant hurdles to clear in bringing compensation claims against their employers. The main difficulty is proving that their employer knew or should have known that they were at risk. The employee then also had to show that they had suffered a recognised psychiatric injury as a result of the bullying. July’s House of Lords’ decision in Majrowski v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust has opened a new and easier route for employees (and ex-employees) to obtain compensation for workplace bullying by bringing claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the legislation which was primarily intended to combat stalking). The Law Lords have decided that the employer can be vicariously liable for harassment carried out by one of their employees against another in the course of their employment. In practice, it is likely that employees will see this is an attractive cause of action as the employer is likely to have deeper pockets and therefore be more capable of meeting any award of damages, which might be made. Claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 would be dealt with by the civil courts, as opposed to Employment Tribunals and employees would have six years from the date of the harassment (as opposed to three or six months) in which to lodge their claim. The decision in Majrowski will give cause for concern for employers and it serves as a salutary reminder that anti-harassment policies should be clear and positive steps should be taken to eradicate the culture of bullying which remains prevalent in many organisations. It will not be enough to merely have a policy in a staff handbook – the policy must be ‘alive’ and put into practice.
|
Company Law Reform and The Duties of Directors The process of reforming company law has been underway since 1998 and is finally coming to a conclusion. The Companies Bill was passed in the House of Lords after receiving its third reading on 23 May 2006. It has now completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons, having been read for the second time on 6 June 2006. It is expected that the Bill will receive its Royal Assent in October 2006 with most of the provisions coming into force in either April or October 2007. The thinking behind the Bill is to simplify matters for smaller private companies. This was prompted by a realisation that the current legislation is framed with the needs of the public company in mind and not private companies, although the latter make up over 90% of the nearly 2,000,000 companies currently registered. Therefore the aim of the Bill is to make the legislation user friendly, simple and clear. However, since it stretches to over 500 pages and contains over 900 clauses, it seems fairly unlikely that this aim will be achieved. As you would expect with this many clauses, the scope of the Act is wide-ranging and it will undoubtedly have an impact on all companies big and small, and all professionals involved with advising them. Some changes are easily discussed and understandable, such as the proposal that private companies will no longer need to have a company secretary, whereas others are somewhat more esoteric, for instance the new rules relating to financial assistance. One area which has attracted a lot of attention, and a certain amount of controversy, is that concerning the duties of directors. Currently, directors duties have evolved through case law, whereas the Bill tries to codify these duties, as well as allowing companies to provide more onerous duties in their Articles of Association. In particular, the Bill introduces the idea of “enlightened shareholder value”. This places an express onus on the directors to consider in good faith the interests of, amongst others, the employees, suppliers, customers, the environment and the community. Although these duties are owed to and are, therefore, only enforceable by or on behalf of the Company, the general feeling is that this will create greater bureaucracy at Board level and expose directors to greater potential liability. On a more positive note for directors, the requirement that a director provides his home address has been removed since a “service address” can be provided as an alternative. This will be seen as good news by some, especially those involved in some of the more controversial businesses where directors have been targeted at home by protestors. Birketts LLP will be organising seminars once the Bill has received its Royal Assent in order to make sure that businesses in the area have the opportunity to learn about provisions which are likely to affect them prior to them coming in to force next year. If you would like to be included on the mailing list for these, then please contact sandie-bennitt@birketts.co.uk |
|
Port Expansion at Felixstowe
World trade is forecast to increase by about 7% this year, but available port capacity will increase by only 4.7%. Demand is set to outstrip supply, with a predictable impact on prices. So the news that Hutchinson Ports (UK) Limited the owner of the Port of Felixstowe and Harwich International Port got the go-ahead earlier this year from the Government for the conversion of Felixstowe Port’s original Dock Basin into a new deep sea container terminal coupled with the Bathside Bay development at Harwich for a new container terminal must be good news for investors and businesses alike. Felixstowe Port’s original Dock Basin, an area previously used by P&O North Sea Ferries together with the existing Landguard Terminal will be developed into a new deep sea container terminal and will be set to almost double the container capacity of Felixstowe’s busiest container port, already the largest in the UK. Features of the development will include improvements in rail capacity and both road and rail connections to the Port will be improved. A new north rail terminal, capable of removing up to 500,000 lorries from the roads each year, is included in the plans. The first phase of the new terminal at Felixstowe Port will commence operation in 2008 and when fully operational, the Felixstowe South development is expected to create in excess of 600 jobs with an additional 860 jobs expected in associated industries. The Bathside Bay terminal at Harwich is expected to create 770 new jobs directly and in excess of 900 more in associated industries. The development at Felixstowe will include a new visitors’ centre and viewing area together with a permanent landing stage for the Felixstowe – Harwich – Shotley foot ferry. The go-ahead for the development at Harwich followed a long public enquiry with environmentalists concerned over the loss of habitat for birds and other wildlife and as part of the development, Hutchinson Ports (UK) Limited have secured a 138 hectare site at Hamford Water, close to Bathside Bay, to provide a compensatory habitat for birds and other wildlife and in addition, the development project will see the creation of a new wetland area along side the A120, providing an attractive approach to the site and an enhanced setting to the town of Harwich. |
Highways Authorities It was thought that Highway Authorities were liable to highway users for failure to take action to remove snow and ice from the highway. However Goodes –v- East Sussex decided that a Highway Authority was only responsible for maintaining the highway and keeping the highway free of snow and ice were not acts of maintenance. As a result of that decision, legislation was passed to make the Authority liable once again for an unreasonable failure to keep the highway free of snow and ice. The Goodes’ decision, however, also cast doubt on whether a Highway Authority could be liable for an accident caused by flooding of the highway. Previously it had been held that it was liable but now it was questioned whether that was correct. The argument was that the duty to maintain the highway only created a duty to maintain the surface of the highway. It did not extend to repairing the drains under the highway. It was further argued that if that was wrong and there was a duty which extended to repairing the drains under the highway, it did not extend to removing blockages. It only required the Authority to repair damage to the drains. The arguments succeeded before a High Court Judge. His decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court considered the previous law, in particular the case of Burnside, in which an accident occurred when a car went into a large pool of water and swung onto the opposite side of the road and into collision with another vehicle. The water had accumulated because the drains were not operating properly and the Highway Authority had been held liable in that case for the damage and injuries caused to the car driver. The Court of Appeal held that that case was properly decided. It also held that the Highway Authority had a duty to provide a proper system of drainage for the road and to keep it in repair and clear of blockages. Although it would not be liable for transient flooding which might occur, for example if heavy rain was too much for the system, or leaves caused a temporary blockage, it would be liable for flooding caused through a defect or blockage in the system of which the Authority were aware and which it should have repaired or resolved before the accident. |