English Law's Global Dominance

Task 1

English law is the fav0ured administering law f0r business exchanges ar0und the w0rld, even th0se that d0n't have any c0mpulsi0n t0 abide by the law due t0 t0p0graphic c0nnecti0ns with England. There are several reas0ns behind the acceptance 0f English principles, as 0ne 0f the primary 0nes. The law has been a n0table, very much created and legitimate law devel0ped 0ver years. English law is significant truly because 0f the English Realm, 0ne 0f the tw0 biggest d0mains in 0ng0ing hist0ry, cl0se by the French Realm. S0me p0rti0n 0f the inheritance is that its previ0us pr0vinces have displayed their legitimate framew0rks intently 0n English law.

Numer0us nati0ns which were in the past English settlements h0ld an arrangement 0f precedent law usually set by the c0urts in a case having similar facts and it keeps impr0ving with the devel0pment and changing circumstances by bringing 0ut the questi0ns 0f law and can refer t0 the decisi0ns 0f apex c0urts 0f Britain and Ridges, especially the Privy C0uncil, f0r further dec0ding a new factual situati0n arising. Thus, the decisi0ns 0f c0urts 0f 0ther cust0mary law purviews may likewise help English c0urts in c0nsidering issues as they emerge s0mewhere else. The English laws t0 a great extent g0t influenced by cust0ms as law, at b0th the central and l0cal levels, despite the fact that it has separated significantly fr0m its English predecess0r b0th as far as material and strategy.

East India 0rganizati0n

The establishment 0f East India C0mpany had an enduring heritage 0n gl0bal law thr0ugh the c0l0nies set up by England. Any business entity framed f0r exchanging with the East N0n mainstream players and then with China and the India, it was established by R0yal Charter in 1600. Queen Elizabeth, The Cr0wn I utilized imperial ann0uncement and assets in the treasury t0 build up exchange in the interest 0f English traders, making the primary j0int-st0ck 0rganizati0n, made 0ut 0f financial specialists with shares in the 0rganizati0n. The invest0rs are given rates 0f the 0rganizati0n's benefits, 0r pr0fits, in view 0f the quantity 0f 0ffers they h0ld. Queen Elizabeth, Cr0wn additi0nally restricted the 0bligati0n 0f the East India C0mpany’s financial specialists, making it the w0rld's restrained Risk C0mpany. This implies the financial specialists are all0wed security against l0sing any m0re cash than their underlying speculati0n. 0n the 0ff chance that the 0rganizati0n fizzles, its excepti0nal 0bligati0ns aren't split am0ng its financial specialists. The f0undati0n 0f the East India 0rganizati0n set a trend and its French, Dutch and different c0ntenders went with the same pattern. Regardless, with0ut the East India 0rganizati0n, Britain might n0t have f0rmed int0 the c0untry it is currently. At the p0int when Queen Elizabeth, Cr0wn c0nceded c0ntract t0 the 0rganizati0n, it set the m0del f0r present day c0mpanies as we pr0bably am aware them t0day.

HM C0urts and C0uncils Administrati0n

English law is additi0nally reinf0rced by its freed0m 0f the legal executive, the experience and n0t0riety 0f judges and the high calibre 0f UK law 0ffices and att0rneys. The HM C0urts and C0uncils Administrati0n, thr0ugh c0urts and c0urts, c0ntr0ls crafted by the c0urts t0 give pe0ple and 0rganizati0ns access t0 equity. The c0urts manage matters running fr0m business questi0ns and individuals declaring their w0rk rights t0 family law and matters 0f managerial law, 0ver the dispatches 0f the judges' c0urts, the Regi0n C0urt, Cr0wn C0urt, Family C0urt and Imperial 0fficial c0urtr00ms. The Trade C0urt manages business, expert and business and questi0ns, including agreements and business rec0rds; purchasing, selling and m0ving merchandise; pr0tecti0n matters; banking and m0netary administrati0ns; business 0ffices and discreti0n claims. The relative speed and pr0ductivity with which business debates can be settled thr0ugh the English c0urts 0r elective questi0n g0al systems additi0nally add t0 the prevalence 0f English law and L0nd0n's n0t0riety f0r being a w0rldwide c0ntest g0al f0cus. Measurements distributed by HM C0urts and the L0nd0n C0urt 0f Gl0bal Mediati0n unc0vered that between 31st Walk 2012 and first April 2013, practically 81% 0f its cases included a rem0te gathering, while 49% 0f cases were alt0gether between 0utside gatherings, being 0rganizati0ns fused 0utside 0f Britain. L0nd0n is 0ne 0f the m0st mainstream asserti0n scenes 0n the planet f0r such 0utside gatherings.

Legal Freed0m

The cauti0us determinati0n, fairness and experience 0f English law judges, c0mbined with their aptitude in managing c0mplex cases, are established in legal aut0n0my, a key guideline 0f the UK c0nstituti0n. Judges are engaged t0 ch00se cases as indicated by their 0wn judgment 0f the issues, with0ut 0utside impact and g0vernment c0ntr0l. Legal arrangements in Britain are made by the Legal Arrangements C0mmissi0n, a free n0n-departmental 0pen b0dy that was pr0pelled in 2006. It guarantees that the c0ntender f0r legal 0ffice are liberated fr0m any p0litical c0ntributi0n. This pr0cedure limits the hazard that judges are unduly affected by 0uter p0wers when ch00sing cases, assisting with keeping up the uprightness and aut0n0my 0f the English c0urts.

Substance 0f English law

English law is straightf0rward and unsurprising, giving 0pp0rtunity 0f agreement, a pr0fessi0nal business appr0ach. Under English law, in business gets, there's n0 suggested larger 0bligati0n 0f sincere trust, n0t at all like in different purviews. An 0bligati0n 0f sincere trust requires neither gathering t0 expl0it the 0ther. Great c0nfidence, regarding different nati0ns, makes c0mmitments f0r gatherings t0 educate 0ne an0ther, when sensible, 0f the significant f0cuses that the 0ther party c0uldn't find all al0ne. It likewise makes c0mmitments t0 apply sensible industri0usness in the exhibiti0n 0f legally binding c0mmitments, while watching g00d and m0ral c0nduct principles. While great c0nfidence may have its 0wn fav0rable circumstances, it makes vulnerability with regards t0 the standard 0f c0nduct anticipated fr0m the gatherings t0 the understanding, particularly in cr0ss fringe exchanges, where s0cial c0ntrast regularly exist. Despite what might be expected, with the n0nattendance 0f any br0ad 0bligati0n 0f sincere trust, English business law is based 0n very much established standards and gives c0nsistency 0f result, lawful assurance and decency. Lord Devlin in Kum v Wat Tat Bank Ltd, 1971 stated that the parties can do the business in any form they need and they need not stick to the usual forms and formats which could be outdated. The common law is not bureaucratic.

Section 13(1), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, has been the most debated area of commercial law, which deals with the exclusion clause and the reason for it being debated is that if full freedom of contract is provided it will lead to the stronger party using exclusion clause to get rid of their obligations but Judiciary has a separate view on this. In the case of British Fermentation Products Ltd v compare Reavell it was held that it was an efficient clause to exclude the vendor’s liability to the purchaser where it regulates the risk and it does not need to be outlawed but regulated. The court at common law couldn’t have defended the clause hence it took indirect means like rules of interpretation and incorporation on exclusion clause. Cases such as Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd the courts were able to incorporate the unreasonable exclusion clause by concluding that it had not been incorporated into the contract.

Divisi0n Strength

There are vari0us divisi0ns directed by English law. These c0ns0lidate 0verall business understandings, banking and financing, 0cean and c0nveyance, mergers and acquisiti0ns, questi0n 0bjective and w0rldwide prudence. With the gr0wing gl0balizati0n 0f business, ass0ciati0ns are end0wed with picking c0ntr0lling law f0r cr0ss-periphery impr0vement c0ntracts. English law is a significant part 0f the time picked c0nsidering the way that the English c0urts are pleasing t0 permitting and executing restricti0n 0f c0mmitment causes, waivers 0f significant incident, liquidati0n 0f predicted damages, time and pr0cedural bars 0n claims, "p0und f0r p0und" reimbursements and "pay when paid" c0nditi0ns. English law c00rdinates that discussi0ns with y0ur lawful c0unsel0r are arranged and made sure ab0ut by real advantage. English lawful advis0rs are c0nstrained by capable standards t0 keep the endeav0rs 0f their clients, and past clients, gr0uped. Legitimate master advantage is set up in English law as a central human right and 0ffers c0mf0rt t0 parties that they can straightf0rwardly and genuinely talk ab0ut issues and strategies with their legal directi0n with0ut this prejudicing the case 0r spilling away fr0m any detectable hindrance regi0n.

London: a World Head

L0nd0n has ardently settled its circumstance as a w0rld-driving cash related c0re interest. Assessment has revealed that it has 0verp0wered New Y0rk as the w0rld's best budgetary c0re interest. Many st0re specialists rank L0nd0n especially, exhibiting that it's a c0nsistent w0rkplace. Acc0rding t0 0verall rankings, c0llected by analysts at the Z/Yen Gathering in 2015, L0nd0n beat every single gr0uping in their rund0wn, including best business c0nditi0n, the m0st incredible establishment, the m0st advanced budgetary centre, the t0p all things c0nsidered reputati0n and the best human capital. Unt0uchables ackn0wledge the adequacy 0f L0nd0n makes it a shielded sp0t t0 c00rdinate business, with the significance and br0adness 0f business activity in the capital, the nature 0f its master 0rganizati0ns and its w0rld class security and banking undertakings giving it a further lift.

L0nd0n is als0 pr0minent as a w0rld sp0t f0r w0rldwide intercessi0n. The L0nd0n C0urt 0f Universal Discreti0n (LCIA) is a primary 0verall establishment f0r the 0bjective 0f business discusses. It 0ffers versatile, successful and fair ass0ciati0n 0f attentiveness, paying little regard t0 the regi0n and under any law system. Its w0rldwide nature is reflected by the path that ar0und 80% 0f s0cial events in current LCIA cases are n0t 0f English nati0nality. It 0ffers the m0st experienced, n0ticeable specialists, pr0s and center individuals fr0m vari0us wards, wh0 have the amplest extent 0f d0minance. Its 0rganizati0ns are 0pen t0 all c0ntracting s0cial 0ccasi0ns and there aren't any enlistment necessities. Further, the 0rganizati0n p0rti0n in the UK is directly s0 basic t0 the ec0n0my that it sets up practically 80% 0f Gr0ss h0useh0ld item, with a gigantic degree 0f the 0rganizati0n fragment being arranged in L0nd0n. Whatever the reas0n 0f acti0n in the UK, these 0rganizati0n parts n0rmally prefer t0 use English law as the purp0se behind their business trades. By extensi0n, English law is the basic 0verseeing law f0r business arranged in 0r w0rking in L0nd0n and its business divisi0ns.

Significant Legal Expertise

The English genuine p0rti0n is surveyed t0 be w0rth £25 billi0n, inferring that get-t0gethers can draw 0n the significance and breadth 0f legitimate capacity and experience 0ffered by law w0rkplaces practicing in English law. These ass0ciati0ns understand 0verall business needs and impart in the language 0f their clients t0 pass 0n business and pr0fessi0nal c0urses 0f acti0n. Extra0rdinary guides are the best appr0ach t0 business acc0mplishment, and English law b0asts s0me the best 0n earth. English experts are n0rmally 0bserved t0 be 0f a high family in the authentic w0rld. Whether 0r n0t its c0mplex multi-jurisdicti0nal c0rp0rate c0urses 0f acti0n, expansive business framew0rks and evaluati0n gainful structures, multi-party high-regard questi0n 0bjective, rel0cati0n and w0rk issues 0r generally speaking establishment adventures which shape nati0ns, English law w0rkplaces and genuine experts lead the 0verall field in data, particular auth0rity, business understanding and w0rth put t0gether deftness and w0rk with respect t0 an extensive parcel 0f the element grabbing, w0rld-devel0ping plans, business and issues happening t0day.

Impact 0f Brexit

The intrigue 0f England and Wales as a district f0r w0rldwide business c0ntracts hasn't changed because 0f Brexit, acc0rding t0 the Law S0ciety 0f England and Wales. The way that England has the best law w0rkplaces 0n earth, with ren0wned experience and auth0rity created 0ver vari0us years, infers they will c0ntinue setting the 0verall standard. English c0urts' reputati0n f0r aptitude and self-rule and h0w judges are held in high respect f0r their business data will be unaffected by the UK's v0te t0 leave the Eur0pean Uni0n. English understanding law isn't affected by EU law when all is said in d0ne, since it gets fr0m C0mm0n Law. English understanding law is sufficiently versatile t0 change, sh0uld there be a specific terms in gets that relate t0 EU law. S0me even battle that Brexit c0uld pr0v0ke English law being dynamically appealing as the law 0f ch0ice, as the UK c0uld never again be required t0 j0in th0se pieces 0f EU law. The Law S0ciety ackn0wledges that masters, judge and law w0rkplaces can be relied 0n, n0t least since English law 0ffers sufficiency and sureness and this w0n't change by virtue 0f Brexit. In reality the future heading 0f the UK and its genuine part in respect 0f Brexit remains indistinguishable, yet there is n0thing at this stage t0 sh0w that the divisi0n with everything taken int0 acc0unt will suffer 0ut and 0ut.

Task 2

1. Legal Debate: It is better to register as a self-employed for national insurance purposes than to incorporate a Limited Liability Company

In the UK, four main types of business structures can be legally formed: sole trader; partnership, limited liability partnership and limited liability company. Each of these business forms has a number of liability and tax implications for its shareholders and owners. For the purposes of this debate, the sole trader and limited liability company will be compared.

Sole trader (self-employed) is arguably the easiest and simplest business form to register and operate given the minimal set up and administration costs. This makes self-employment the most common structure preferred by new businesses. It enables an individual to be self-employed and thus, self-reliant, as they work for themselves. Sole traders enjoy reduced filing requirements and fewer regulations. On taxation: while sole traders are entitled to retain all the profits they make, they pay income tax and national insurance; which are not paid separately but on basis of all the businesses’ earnings by filling out a self-assessment tax return.

Since a sole trader is not a legal entity in its own right, its proprietor (the self-employed) bears all the (unlimited) debt and legal liabilities that may arise. This increases the personal risk that a self-employed individual is exposed to.

A limited liability company, on the other hand, is a separate and legal entity which has its own rights and obligations and must be registered at Companies House and HMRC. This means that the company is responsible for all its dealings and its finances and the owners’ personal affairs are kept separate. An advantage of this is that the owners’ liability (tax and debt) is limited to the shares they hold, and their personal assets are therefore protected from risk. LLCs also stand to enjoy possible reduction on tax bills as they climb higher in the tax bracket. The filing history, current appointments and other information about the company is made public once it’s incorporated. This benefits the LLCs in that it affords them transparency, which is a significant business advantage.

A disadvantage of LLCs is that they undergo quite a long registration and incorporation process both at the Companies House and HMRC. LLCs have to comply with several annual reporting and filing requirements. As a result, they can only retain any profits made after paying corporation tax. Only then can the shareholders share the profits in the form of dividends.

Given these arguments, it can be concluded that for the purposes of national insurance, it is better to register a sole-trader than to incorporate an LLC.

2. JVC Plc

Depending on the type of contract Timothy signed with JVC Plc, he could be entitled to payment for his services or not. Timothy will be entitled to payment only if he had a contractual agreement and right to payment. If the written service agreement between him and the company expressly provides for the payment of a salary or wage, and maybe other benefits, then he would be entitled to payment for his services to the board and company. He is also entitled to payment if the service contract he signed runs for a fixed term exceeding 2 years (and which the company cannot terminate by notice) and is approved by the company’s ordinary resolution, as provided for by section 188 of the Companies Act 2006. Timothy will also be entitled to remuneration subject to determination by the directors for any services he renders to the company as director or for any other services he undertakes for JVC.

On how JVC Plc should relate with its employees: Just like any other business or company, JVC Plc should treat and relate with all employees in accordance with the Employment and Labour Laws and Regulations as provided for in the common laws. As such all the relevant components of the employment law will apply to how the company relates with employees. These common issues or statutes covered by the Employment and Labour Laws and Regulations and which JVC Plc must comply with include: terms and conditions of employment, industrial relations, employee representation, data protection and employee privacy, maternity and family leave rights, discrimination and business sales.

When JVC Plc starts struggling to survive: A struggling company faces a number of problems, which, it can follow some specified procedures to resolve. These procedures could result in the company’s closure, sale, streamlining of operations, restructuring or liquidation. In any case, regardless of the procedure, employees and directors could be adversely affected. In such instances where dismissal is necessitated, the employees will be entitled to file claims for redundancy pay and other statutory benefits such as arrears, commissions, overtime, untaken holiday or notice pay. For Timothy, the claims he is able to make will depend on the type of contract he signed with the company.

Going by the provisions of the Employment and Labour Laws and Regulations which protect employees at all stages of the employment relationship (from recruitment to after termination) from discrimination, PSS can be said to have discriminated against Kane’s wife. Kane’s wife was discriminated against on the basis of her gender, which is one of the protected characteristics (among age, disability, race, pregnancy, sexual orientation, marriage status, and so on), which the law provides protection against. By virtue of the company treating her less favorably because of her gender, this can be classified as direct discrimination which is illegal. As such, Kane’s wife could bring discrimination claims before the Employment Tribunal and seek a loss-of-earnings award or compensation, unless the company is able to justify the ‘provision, criterion or practice’ and show that it was necessary to achieve a legitimate goal.

Dismissal of employees as a result of a company shutting down operations or based on stagnation and higher costs than revenues that necessitate downsizing the work force is legal, provided the employer can clearly show an economical, organization or technical reason that brings about changes in the workforce and that creates a redundancy situation. And since there are no special rules applicable to such dismissals, Kane cannot bring forth a claim, if indeed the company’s move was genuine and legal.

PSS’s leakage of Kane’s personal details and information to the various organizations and individuals amounts to a breach and violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as provided for by the Data Protection Act of 2018. It is required that employers must comply with the above regulation and act by processing employee data lawfully, fairly, for specific and legal purposes and ensuring that adequate security measures are employed to protect the data. And since there are restrictions on transfer of data outside the EEA where there is inadequate security and protection for the data, PSS can be held liable and fined for breaching the General Data Protection Regulation. Kane, by virtue of the fact that he was no longer an employee at the time PSS leaked his details, he was not informed that his details were being processed, and for which purpose and to whom it was disclosed, can therefore sue the company for violating his privacy and seek restitution.

Kane’s use of PSS’s logo and symbol for his company would have had legal implications if PSS was still operational and if it had trademarked or copyrighted its logo and symbols. However, since PSS is no longer operational, Kane’s use of the logo would not bring about any confusion in PSS’s marketplace and cannot be therefore considered infringing. This would also be the case if the two companies are in separate markets.

Daniel is eligible to sue the company for constructive dismissal. As a requirement of law, the company should have consulted the employees before enforcing the compulsory overtime since it is a matter that would necessitate a change in their employment contract. Therefore, the employees at PSS could only work overtime if their contracts said so and since this was not the case, the employer was in breach of contract. This action led to unreasonable changes to how employees work and the employer’s conduct and Daniel’s refusal to work overtime forced him to leave the job against his will, since by staying it would have been argued by PSS that he accepted the new terms or the employer’s conduct. There are a number of alternative dispute resolution avenues (devoid of litigation) open to Daniel. Some of these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods include: negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Daniel could first talk to the employer (negotiate) to sort out the highlighted issues so as to resolve the dispute. This is advantageous since the two parties are able to control the process and solution arrived at to resolve the dispute. If this fails, he could turn to mediation. This is whereby a mediator (who is a trained negotiator) will bring him and PSS together with a view to arriving at an agreement or settlement. However, since mediation agreements are not binding, either or both parties could accept or reject them. Further, Daniel could resort to arbitration, which is more formal and quite resembles a trial though simpler. This ADR method is complex in that Daniel and PSS both have to enter into a binding arbitration agreement where they determine the arbitration process and lay out their terms. The process is then headed and led by a single arbitrator or an arbitral panel, who both disputing parties agree to. The process usually lasts a few days to a week and meetings held a few hours each day. The arbitral panel or arbitrator then deliberates on the facts by each party and issues an arbitral award or decision that is usually in writing and binding to both parties.

3. Jezzy and Margaret Negligence Claims

Besides the numerous health and safety regulations that guide restaurants and similar establishments, and which they must strictly comply with, there is also the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 which outlines that these establishments owe a duty of care to all their visitors and guests. In line with this, restaurants must ensure they are fit for their purpose and provide a safe environment for those who visit or they permit to be there. While majority are diligent in their provision of duty of care to their clients, there are cases whereby accidents, injuries and illnesses occur due to negligence or otherwise. Where these accidents, injuries and illnesses occur as a result of the establishment’s negligence, it could be held liable and sued for negligence and compensation for injury and damages sought.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], established the modern negligence law. For negligence claims to be successful, claimants have to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, the defendant breached the duty, and damage resulted from the breach and finally prove that the damage was not too remote.

In the case of Jezzy and Margaret, it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the restaurant that did not exercise reasonable care. Restaurants, by virtue of the duty of care they owe their customers, should ensure that the food and drinks they serve customers is safe and fit for consumption and properly prepared, so that the customers do not suffer illnesses or food poisoning as Margaret did. While it is Margaret who suffered the food poisoning and therefore legible to sue the restaurant for negligence claims and for failing to exercise reasonable care, Jezzy can also file negligence claims for compensation. This is because, by virtue of the fact that he was the one paying for the drinks, he was in essence, in contract with the restaurant. To strengthen their negligence claims, Margaret and Jezzy should make note of all the relevant details regarding the restaurant, the time, the food or drink consumed and even take pictures of the wine with the snail in it. Since proving causation (that it is the restaurant that caused the food poisoning) is usually difficult, this will go a long way in isolating and identifying the restaurant and the harmful wine as the source of illness suffered. Proving harm or injury (food poisoning leading to diarrhea, in this case) is also an important element of a negligence claim. Margaret should therefore have seen a doctor immediately to identify the contaminated food (drink) and determine the degree of illness. Proving these facts will support their claim that the wine the restaurant served was unreasonably dangerous and therefore warrant compensation and damages for: pain and suffering, medical bills, out-of-pocket expenses and emotional distress.

Bibliography

Books

Menkel-Meadow, C.J., Porter-Love, L., Kupfer-Schneider, A. and Moffitt, M., 2018. Dispute resolution: Beyond the adversarial model. Aspen Publishers.

Merkin, R. and Flannery, L., 2014. Arbitration act 1996. CRC Press.

Payne, D., 1958. The Occupiers' Liability Act. The Modern Law Review, 21(4), pp.359-374.

Rose, F. ed., 2016. Blackstone's Statutes on Contract, Tort and Restitution 2016-2017. Oxford University Press.

Cases

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Journal

Adam, S., Miller, H. and Pope, T., 2017. Tax, legal form and the gig economy. Green Budget, 2017.

Blake, S.H., Browne, J. and Sime, S., 2016. A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution. Oxford University Press.

Creutzfeldt, N. and Bradford, B., 2016. Dispute resolution outside of courts: procedural justice and decision acceptance among users of ombuds services in the UK. Law & Society Review, 50(4), pp.985-1016.

Cribb, J., Miller, H. and Pope, T., 2019. Who are business owners and what are they doing? (No. R158). IFS Report.

Folberg, J., Golann, D., Stipanowich, T.J. and Kloppenberg, L.A., 2016. Resolving disputes: Theory, practice, and law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Lord Irvine, May 2001, “ The Law: An Engine for Trade”, THE MODERN LAW REVIEW Vol 64, NO.3

Rupert Cross & J.W Harris, 2004, Precedent in English Law, clarendon press oxford (4th edn.)

Salmond’s Jurisprudence, (12th edn.), 199