May 23rd, 2013
In a judgment which is likely to represent the new judicial approach in civil cases across England and Wales, a county court judge has remarked that he had come close to refusing a request for an extension of time to exchange witness statements, but had been influenced in his decision not to do so by the fact that the hearing took place very soon after wide-ranging amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules had come into force on 1 April 2013.
In Fons HF v Corporal Ltd [2013] EWHC 1278 (Ch) (9 May 2013), His Honour Judge Pelling QC was dealing with a case in which the parties had failed to exchange witness statements in accordance with a court order. A second order, made in November 2012 (so prior to the rule amendments), directed the parties to serve witness statements by 6 April 2013. The parties agreed a further extension to 18 April 2013 but the second defendant was still not ready to exchange and so sought an extension of time from the court.
In granting an extension until 4pm the following day, the judge referred to a new requirement in the rules introduced on 1 April 2013 which requires the courts to ensure that they “enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders”, and stated that he had “come very close” to refusing to grant an extension. The judge emphasised that “all parties and the wider litigation world should be aware that all courts at all levels are now required to take a very much stricter view of the failure … to comply with directions”. This is particularly the case where the failure is likely to lead to a waste of court resources.
Comment: This judgment can be expected to be one of the first of many in which the court will be far less tolerant of parties who breach orders made by the court. The court is now required to pay close attention to the failure of parties to comply with rules, directions and orders, which is a breach of the overriding objective and is likely to result in severe sanctions.
This article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice, is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered, and should not be relied on as such. Legal advice should be sought about your specific circumstances before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.
Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
April 9th, 2013
Since 8th March 2013, parents who qualify for parental leave (if the employee has been employed by the employer for more than one year) can take up to 18 weeks’ unpaid parental leave in relation to each child under five years of age (or in the first 5 years of placement if the child is adopted). Prior to 8th March, parents were only entitled to 13 weeks’ parental leave. Parents of children who qualify for Disability Living Allowance are entitled to 18 weeks’ parental leave up until the child’s 18th birthday.
Where an employee has more than one child, parental leave can be taken in respect of each child. However the limit on how much parental leave an employee can take in any one year is 4 weeks unless otherwise agreed with the employer. Also, unless agreed with the employer or if the child is disabled, parental leave should be taken in blocks of one week rather than individual days.
Parental leave is intended to give parents the opportunity to spend more time with their children and to allow parents additional time to undertake matters such as making new childcare arrangements, looking at schools and visiting family. It should be noted that an employee’s employment rights such as the right to pay, holidays and returning to a job, are protected during parental leave.
Comment
Parents who may be struggling to achieve a good work and home life balance will no doubt welcome the increase as it grants more flexibility to parents whilst alleviating some concerns in relation to their job security. Further, this increase is entirely separate from the Government’s plan to introduce a system of ‘shared parental leave’ (due to come into force in 2015) which will enable parents to share caring responsibilities after the birth of their child.
April 8th, 2013
Long leaseholders of a substantial Victorian property in central London were able to successfully argue before the High Court that a 1966 covenant gave them and the freeholder the right to veto building work on an adjoining plot of land. The impact of the High Court’s decision is that the owner of the adjoining plot must submit plans, drawings and specifications of any proposed construction on the adjoining plot to the leaseholders and the freeholder for prior approval by before planning permission can be sought.
However, the Court did also imply a term into the covenant to the effect that the leaseholders’ consent to the construction cannot be unreasonably withheld. After an analysis of the facts and the context in which the covenant had been drafted, the Court held that it could not have been the parties’ intention to grant an absolute right to withhold consent. It was clear to the Court that the right of veto needed to be qualified and that consent could not be ‘arbitrarily or capriciously’ withheld, regardless of any express wording to that effect.
Comment
The outcome of this case is likely to cause some concern for individuals who have bought property with a view to developing the same as it essentially places another hurdle in the way of development in addition to any planning applications and objections which are part and parcel of development. This decision will be of particular concern to purchasers at auction, when there is less time and information available to make an informed decision as to potential problems (in this case the adjoining owner purchased her plot by way of auction in 2012).
However it will be of some comfort to see that the Court has taken a sensible approach and amended the covenant so that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld and does give some hope to concerned developers.
April 8th, 2013
The Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Repeals, Revocations and Amendments) Regulations 2013 have been laid before Parliament to repeal :
Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922- Gasholders (Record of Examinations) Order 1938
- Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960
- Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974
- Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 (Exemptions) Regulations 1980
- Gasholders and Steam Boilers (Metrication) Regulations 1981
- Locomotives etc Regulations 1906 (Metrication) Regulations 1981
- Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982
- Docks, Shipbuilding etc (Metrication) Regulations 1983
- Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989
- Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (Amendment) Regulations 2002
- Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010
- Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes (Amendment) Regulations 2010
Much of this legislation is duplicated in other provisions and the aim is that health and safety legislation becomes clearer to understand and to comply with.
2006 saw the start of a mandatory licensing scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation. ‘HMOs’ are those properties that consist of :
0800 043 0538
