The Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) applies to all medium / large UK businesses and obliges them to conduct periodic energy efficiency audits.

The qualifying criteria are involved, but in essence any business with more than 250 employees or with turnover in excess of £39M p.a. and a balance sheet of more than £33.5M is caught. It is estimated that some 10,000 businesses are within scope.

The audit must be carried out at least every four years, be approved by a qualified ‘Lead Assessor’, be signed off by a board director and be notified to the Environment Agency (which is maintaining a register for this purpose).

Although ESOS is described as a “Scheme” there is no obligation to actually implement any energy saving measures identified and no dedicated financial assistance or incentives are offered. However, Michelmores is aware that at least one bank has sought to plug this gap by offering finance and creating a ‘panel’ of energy performance contractors who will undertake the relevant works on a percentage fee linked to the savings achieved.

The deadline for notifying the EA of the first round of audits is rapidly looming, being 5 December 2015. In light of limited awareness among the business community, and a lack of availability among Lead Assessors at this time, the EA has recently issued guidance indicating that it will not normally take enforcement action in relation to late notifications provided notification is made by 29 January 2016. A further grace period has been announced for businesses which are seeking to gain the relevant energy efficiency best practice certification, ISO 50001, until 30 June 2016. ISO 50001 status exempts the holder from ESOS.

The penalties for failing to notify in time include a fixed civil fine of up to £5,000 plus a daily penalty of £500 for up to 80 days, so the total fine could amount to £45,000. Failure to carry out an audit carries a fixed penalty of up to £50,000, with a daily penalty of £500 for up to 80 days. There are also ‘naming and shaming’ provisions.

Consultation

The Government has recently consulted on a review of the overall package of business energy tax, reporting and incentives (including ESOS). The aim is to simplify the various overlapping measures currently in place, to reduce the administrative compliance burden on business and to increase productivity.

The consultation, Reforming the Business Energy Efficiency Tax Landscape, ran until 9 November 2015. The key proposals are as follows:

• Reporting – Replacement of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) and the Green House Gas listed-company reporting requirement with enhanced reporting within ESOS.
• Tax – Replacement of the CRC and Climate Change Levy (CCL) with an enhanced version of CCL.
• Incentives – No clear proposal is made; the Government expresses itself open to suggestions provided they are tax-neutral.

It is tempting to see the consultation (and the parallel consultation on the Feed in Tariff) as part of a re-orientation of Government strategy away from subsidising renewable generation and toward promoting cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

The Department of Energy & Climate Change indicate that they are still considering responses to their consultation. Meanwhile, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is seeking separate evidence through a research project. Its remit includes Energy Performance Certificates and is due to report at the end of March 2016. So we may need to wait for the 2016 Budget or beyond for further details. In the meantime, businesses must not ignore their ESOS obligations.

Further information:

A Guide to implementing Energy Savings Opportunities
Environment Agency ESOS Guidance
Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/1643)
Consultation, Reforming the Business Energy Efficiency Tax Landscape, HM Treasury / DECC

For more information please contact Ian Holyoak on 01392 687682 or ian.holyoak@michelmores.com or Tom Brearley on 01392 687554 or tom.brearley@michelmores.com

This article was first published in Solicitors Journal on 29 September 2015 and is reproduced by kind permission

Should women feel restrained from taking a stand against sexism by the fear of being labelled a ‘troublemaker’, asks Pippa Allsop

Having received a message on LinkedIn – the supposedly professional networking site – which complimented human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman solely on her ‘stunning’ profile picture, and which ignored any recognition of her legal proficiency, Proudman posted the initial message and her scathing response on her Twitter, along with the caption, ‘How many women [on LinkedIn] are contacted re physical appearance rather than prof skills?’

A bold and inspirational move – had it not been for the fact that the post was not anonymised and, as a result, has now led to considerable backlash professionally, and I suspect also personally, for them both.

Surely every professional, male and female, takes pride in their appearance. Who, realistically, picks their most hideous picture for a professional profile? The problem is that it is women whose intellectual attributes are side-lined by their aesthetic ones – something which is hardly ever the case for men.

Would such comments be viewed as so wildly inappropriate, had they been sent via another social media medium, such as Facebook or Twitter? I think not. But then why is it acceptable to objectify women at all, as opposed to just professional women in a professional setting? As someone who has been unprofessionally approached on LinkedIn myself, I found myself wondering, what on earth do these people think LinkedIn profiles are for?

My personal summary does not boast my romantic status or how I enjoy long walks in the park, it lists my professional skill set. I have a well-presented profile picture because I want to create the best possible first impression and not (unbelievably) in a bid to attract prospective dates. This, for me, is the issue.

There are some men – by no means all, but some – who do not appreciate that their comments not only devalue women, but also women’s opinions of men.

Nevertheless, some men feel it is acceptable to objectify women to their faces. This is why I believe that calling people out on such behaviour is entirely right. Proudman’s reaction was strong, and one I can wholly sympathise with. However, this strength has undoubtedly been undermined by the ‘anonymity element’, and plays directly into the hands of those who would dismiss feminist stands as overreactions or political correctness gone mad. I do not believe that militant feminism serves to help the cause, and I fear examples such as this one actually perpetuate and exacerbate another message: don’t say it to their faces.

The backlash against Proudman (which included a senior male partner publicly stating that she had ‘blacklisted’ herself from receiving work from him) appears to reaffirm that women who take a stand against sexism are widely viewed as being an inconvenience.

A very pertinent question is whether it is right that women should feel restrained in the way they take a stand against sexism, for fear of being dubbed a ‘troublemaker’. It is not a straightforward question. It is true, though, that the way in which you express your viewpoint can easily affect its validity and, therefore, it is imperative to make your point in such a way that it does not leave scope for criticism.

A US judge has “strongly recommended” that a group of luxury goods makers, including Yves Saint Laurent and Gucci continue with attempts to mediate the group claim against China’s largest e-commerce entity, Alibaba Group Holding (“Alibaba”). The claim relates to the sale of counterfeit goods by Alibaba worldwide.

The claim was filed at Manhattan Federal Court in May and alleges that Alibaba was aware of counterfeit goods being offered for sale on its websites and had conspired to manufacture, offer for sale and traffic such goods, under the claimant’s trade marked names, without the permission of the claimants.

Alibaba has been the subject of numerous complaints from business worldwide in relation to counterfeit goods. Prior to entering the US online market in September 2014, Alibaba removed 90 million listings which it was alleged had infringed intellectual property rights.

The claimants are seeking damages and an injunction in relation to Alibaba’s alleged illegal business activities and trade mark infringement.

Despite initially offering to mediate, comments by Alibaba’s executive Chairman were published in Forbes magazine two weeks ago which suggested there would be no settlement of the claim. An Alibaba spokesman later explained that this comment was made before the offer of mediation was accepted. However, the claimants wrote to the Court last week and explained they now considered mediation to be a ‘futile exercise’ designed only to ‘force [the] Plaintiffs to expend resources’.  The claimants requested that the obligation upon them to mediate their claim be removed.

The Court recognised that “needless public comments can undermine talks” but despite this “the Court strongly recommends that the parties proceed to mediation”.

The Court’s response appears to follow the position of the English Courts in placing a strong emphasis on the importance of mediation in all cases and setting a high threshold for parties to overcome in order to show that mediation is not worthwhile. It will be interesting to see whether settlement can be reached or if the claim will proceed to Court.

We will keep you updated on the progress of this case.

This article, authored by Andrew Oldland KC and barrister Nicola Canty, from the Firms Marine Regulatory team, has been featured in the November edition of Marine and Maritime Gazette.

The Department for Transport (‘DfT’) is currently inviting a second round of applications from harbour authorities for any harbour in England and non-fishery harbours in Wales seeking to be designated with the power to give harbour directions under section 40A of the Harbours Act 1964, as amended by section 5 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013.

A harbour authority has duties to safely manage and efficiently run its harbour. It has particular responsibilities in relation to the safety of vessels and people within the harbour, efficient navigation and the protection of the port environment.

In addition to the powers available to harbour authorities under local legislation, (such as byelaws, special or general directions and, for competent harbour authorities, pilotage directions), a designated harbour authority may use harbour directions to regulate ships within their harbour, or ships entering or leaving their harbour. Harbour directions may relate to the movement, mooring and unmooring, equipment (including nature and use) and the manning of ships.

Why apply?

Before the 1964 Act was amended, the only way in which a harbour authority could be granted the power to make general harbour directions was through a Harbour Revision Order (‘HRO’) (under section 14 of the 1964 Act), or by means of a private bill or local Act. These limited options were viewed by the DfT to be out of date and unnecessarily costly and complex. Therefore the new mechanism was introduced under section 40A of the Harbours Act.

This mechanism is a faster and considerably less costly way for a harbour authority to apply for the power to make harbour directions. The harbour directions power is an additional tool to meet the harbour authority’s statutory duties, and the procedure for making harbour directions is more straightforward than the alternative of making harbour byelaws, which must first be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

Review of powers

The letter of application will need to include an explanation of why a particular harbour authority considers the power to make harbour directions is needed. From a practical standpoint, it may be necessary for a harbour authority to undertake a review of its local legislation to evaluate existing statutory powers to ensure that they are still relevant to the safe operation of the harbour. The Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) recommends that additional powers should be sought by a harbour authority if a risk assessment concludes that this would be advisable.

If the applicant harbour authority has existing powers of general direction which overlap with the proposed harbour direction powers to be conferred under section 40A of the Harbours Act 1964, the existing powers of general direction would need to be repealed. Therefore an applicant harbour authority is required to provide details of any provision in a Local Act which would need to be amended or repealed that would otherwise be inconsistent with the power being applied for or unnecessary as a result of the power (section 40A(7) of the Harbours Act 1964 permits the Secretary of State to include such amendments or repeals in a Designation Order).

In addition, copies of relevant Local Acts and Orders should be provided with the application. In particular, relevant provisions containing descriptions of the harbour limits should be included.

Consultation

An informal consultation should be conducted with harbour users to address the suitability of the applicant harbour authority making the application, in addition to the powers that would be covered. The outcome of this informal consultation should also be included in the application.

The DfT also requires a list of any existing or proposed Port User Group (PUG), in addition to other relevant local and regional organisations to be contacted in the DfT’s formal 4-week public consultation. The DfT consultation would address the consultees’ views on the suitability of applicant harbour authorities (whether it is a fit and proper Body to be designated with the power to give harbour directions) and the suitability of the proposed PUG arrangements at the harbour, with any further additional comments invited.

Applications

Michelmores has assisted in drafting successful applications in the first round of applications for harbour authorities. The timetable for the second round of applications is set out on the DfT’s website, with expressions of interest invited by the end of January 2016 and applications proper by the end of March 2016.

Background:

The Property Protocols website, a source of high-quality, free professional advice covering various aspects of the property industry, recently published a protocol to deal with Applications for Consent to Assign or Sublet.  The document is succinct and practical, providing a simple framework for the process of obtaining Landlord’s consent.  Consent to assign and sublet is necessary in the vast majority of leases and the protocol aims to provide a clear process for both parties to follow, complete with timescales and checklists.

Uses:

The protocol sets out to clarify an area that is otherwise only bounded by the landlord’s ‘reasonableness’ – which itself would ultimately be for a Court to decide- but long before that point there needs to be a sense of direction and clarity for both parties if the assignment or subletting is to proceed smoothly.  The protocol therefore sets out some check-list style points such as the information the tenant is to provide at the outset, what triggers the need for superior landlord’s consent and the information the landlord should cover in replying to the application.  By the author’s admission, the protocol is not exhaustive, but as it is an unenforceable, voluntary procedure it is not designed to be exhaustive; more informative.

In terms of remedies should the process go wrong, the protocol suggests Alternative Dispute Resolution over litigation and proposes a number of ways this might be carried out, including some useful starting points for those looking for a mediator.

It is possible that those most likely to agree to follow the protocol are those least likely to run into difficulties, but having a clear timetable from the outset cannot hinder a transaction.  Should one party not wish to follow the protocol there is still no reason why the other couldn’t use it for guidance.

Consent to assign and sublet is necessary in the vast majority of leases, the Property Protocols website, a source of high-quality, free professional advice covering various aspects of the property industry, recently published a protocol to deal with Applications for Consent to Assign or Sublet and this article has summarised the key points for tenants as a checklist.

Tenant’s Checklists:

For any consent application to run smoothly you’re best to:

• Check the terms of your lease at the very start – there may be wording about how to apply for consent, and you will have to act in accordance with this.
• There will almost certainly be a section about ‘service of notices’ which will supply the correct address or contact to send such an application to.  Don’t assume that you will know who needs to see it, the lease may say different!
• Provide the landlord with necessary supporting information in one package. This will help prevent confusion and miscommunication which can cause ill-feeling on both sides.
• If the application is urgent for any reason, let the landlord know the reason (if you can), together with a suitable timescale from the outset. Leases will not usually specify a response time and if the matter is really pressing, clear communication of this is important.

Are you assigning your lease? If so:

Make sure that your landlord has the relevant information about the prospective assignee by providing them with:

• a description of the assignee’s business, their company number and registered office.
• bank/accountant’s references for the assignee if possible.
• the last three year’s accounts (in the absence of these a business plan with profit forecasts can serve). This is to demonstrate that your potential assignee is a ‘good covenant’ i.e. able to meet the costs of occupying the property.
• if a guarantor is proposed, their company details and information on their financial soundness.
• Provide a solicitor’s undertaking to meet the landlord’s (reasonable) legal and professional costs. Providing this with the application reassures the landlord that their costs will be recovered.

Are you subletting?

• The financial check and description of business points mentioned above in relation to assignment also apply here: the landlord will want to know who may be occupying.
• You or your solicitor should prepare a draft sublease, or at least an outline of its terms, particularly those points covering how the subtenant can share or, in turn, sub-let the property.

https://www.michelmores.com/real-estate-insight/protocol-application-consent-assign-and-sublet/

Banks have already ‘paid the price’ for market manipulation in so far as they have paid billions of fines to regulators in pounds sterling and US dollars. However, none of those fines has made its way back to customers. Jonathan Kitchin, our resident expert on the crossover between court action and compliance, sifts through the latest tales of skulduggery.

http://www.michelmores.com/sites/default/files/Compliance-Matters-201015.pdf 

Speaking to the Education team, Headteacher, Jarlath O’Brien gives us an insight into his life at Carwarden House Community School.

Your current title / role

Headteacher of Carwarden House Community School

Brief career background

I was variously a quantity surveyor, an organic chemist, an auditor, a labourer, a postman and a warehouseman before reluctantly becoming a teacher. Since then I have worked in a comprehensive school, an independent selective school and three special schools. I write regularly for the Times Educational Supplement and my first book, on children with learning difficulties, is due to be published in 2016.

What does a typical working day look like?

I get to school for about 7.30am where I, our deputy headteacher, school business manager, our site manager and my PA will work through the issues to be resolved, such as staff absence or a frog that’s been liquidised in the swimming pool filter, so that the day can run smoothly for our staff and students. Staff briefing follows that every morning as we recognise that poor communication kills organisations. It’s time then to welcome the students and I, along with the other senior leaders, are visible around the school as we firmly believe that the start of the day sets the tone for the rest of it. I’ll spend some of the rest of the day in meetings, on or off-site, but will do break and lunch duty at every opportunity as I can talk to most of the students in that time. I will also walk around the school during lessons once a day, often in the middle of doing some really dull paperwork. Bus duty ensures the students leave school safely. Getting home for dinner, bath, story and bed with my children is a non-negotiable which means that I then start work again once they’re asleep.

What did you have for dinner last night?

Pizza and salad.

What was the last piece of music you listened to?

The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room by Flight of the Conchords

What was your favourite and most hated subject when you were at school?

Favourite = PE, English, maths. Most hated = art, music, DT, history, geography. I disliked most of what I studied at school.

What is the best thing about your job?

Being a small part of an incredible team of people that commits to never giving up on children that others have written off.

If you could change one thing about the current education system what would it be?

I would abolish the Ofsted grade of Outstanding. It has become a goal in itself for misguided school leaders and there is strong evidence that it is harder to achieve for mainstream schools if your intake has low prior attainment. There is a clear need to distinguish between schools requiring special measures or a notice to improve, but parents just need to be reassured that their child’s school is good enough. It would also make redundant the parasitic consultants offering to carry out crass Mocksted inspections or turn you into an outstanding teacher if you spend one day in an airless hotel conference centre with them after parting with £300.

Michelmores has been recognised with a Lifetime Achievement Award at The C Group’s annual awards dinner on Friday 2 October 2015 – for its continued support of the Devon-based charity.

The C Group, founded in 2008, provides ongoing support to Royal Marines in need across the UK – including those who have been injured, former Royal Marines resettling into civilian life and families of both serving and former Royal Marines.

One of three awards presented on the night, the Lifetime Achievement Award recognises the individual or business who has made the biggest contribution to the C Group in recent times.

Michelmores’ support over the years has included helping individuals with start-ups, business advice and banking advice.  Most recently, the firm has been involved in a house building project for a wheelchair-bound royal marine, including providing legal advice on the site acquisition and build.

Steve James, Chairman of The C Group said:

“Michelmores has supported us from the outset − firstly advising the charity on its formation and since then, has provided specialist advice as we have evolved.

“They have held events not only to raise funds for the charity but also to raise awareness. However, most importantly they have advised a steady stream of Royal Marines in need, on such diverse matters from business start-ups to bankruptcy – the majority of this work has been undertaken pro bono.

“In the opinion of the charity, this firm is a heavyweight in every respect not only in terms of the advice they provide but in their CSR credentials, which are a beacon to all other businesses.”

Malcolm Dickinson, Managing Partner at Michelmores said:

“We’re so proud to receive such an accolade and feel privileged to have been involved with The C Group since the charity was founded.

The C Group undertakes such important work supporting Royal Marines in need right across the country, and we look forward supporting this great charity for many more years to come.”

Before starting my training contract at Michelmores in 2014, I attended a fantastic conference held by the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) and was so impressed, that when the opportunity arose, I jumped at the chance to join the Committee of The Devon & Somerset JLD.

Initially I was slightly concerned about balancing JLD obligations with my existing workload as a trainee. However, I have found Michelmores to be completely supportive of my JLD commitments – often actively encouraging them.

The JLD organises a wide range of events for trainees, paralegals and solicitors up to five years qualified – I always look forward to the monthly drinks socials, not least for the free nachos! Recently I attended a qualification and employment options seminar, not only did this allow me to meet other like-minded individuals, similarly daunted by the thought of what lies beyond the training contract.  It also enabled me to get a handle on how the qualification process works and areas that are expanding (or contracting as the case may be) in the legal market at the moment.

Being part of the JLD committee does require me to dedicate a considerable amount of my time, this often involves making up work time elsewhere or heading to London a few times a year at the weekend. However, it has contributed greatly to my professional development. I am the national representative of The Devon & Somerset JLD, meaning I attend national meetings in London and am effectively the voice for the South West on different issues affecting junior lawyers in the profession.

As well as getting to visit the impressive Law Society office (just over the road from our London office) in Chancery Lane, this has  greatly increased my confidence in public speaking and made me an effective team member when working to get our voice heard. Recently we have had meetings with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on topics such as the proposed abolition of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and also discussions to decide JLD policies on unpaid work experience and loans for further study. The Devon & Somerset JLD has provided a valuable input on these important issues.

Being part of the national Committee has given me the chance to mingle with JLD members from further afield and gain an insight into what is going on in their local areas, not to mention the fact that my business card collection has also been built up considerably! All in all, being an active member of the JLD is a great opportunity that I would thoroughly recommend anyone to get involved in.

If you would like to find out more about the Junior Lawyers Division please a visit the website: http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/junior-lawyers or alternatively you can follow us on twitter: @DS_JLD.

The recent decision of the ECJ in the case of Boston Scientific Medizintechnik (Case C-503/13, 5 March 2015) has led some commentators to argue that the concept of what constitutes a ‘defective’ product under the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) has been widened. This article considers the effect of the decision and whether its application is limited purely to the medical sector.

The preliminary ruling in Boston

The Bundesgerichtshof in Germany referred two questions to the ECJ. The producers of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators had identified, through quality control systems a potentially defective component in each device which meant that the possibility of the devices failing was 17 to 20 times greater than normal. The producers undertook to replace the devices free of charge, but the issue was who should pay for the cost of inpatient and outpatient treatment for replacement surgery. The insurers of the individuals concerned took Court action against the producers for those costs.

The questions referred to the ECJ (and as interpreted in the opinion of the Advocate General) were as follows.

1. Whether, in essence, an active implantable medical device must be regarded as defective where it belongs to a group for which the risk of failure is significantly higher than normal, or where a defect has already occurred in a significant number of products of the same model; and
2. Whether “damage caused by death or personal injuries” is included in the definition of “damage” set out at Article 1 of the Directive, for which there is strict liability.

It is the ECJ’s answer to question (1) above that has sparked particular interest outside the healthcare sector.

In summary, the ECJ found that where products belonging to the same group or forming part of the same production series have a potential defect, it is possible to classify as defective all the products in the group or series, without there being any need to show that the product in question is itself defective.

Pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Directive, “A product is defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account.” In reaching its conclusion, the ECJ considered that the “safety which the public at large is entitled to expect”, for the purposes of Article 6(1) must be assessed by taking into account the intended purpose, the objective characteristics and properties of the product and the specific requirements of the group of users for whom the product is intended.

The concept of safety must be assessed in the context of any abnormal potential for damage that a product could cause to the person or to the property of its user. Where a product falls into this high risk category, and where it is found that products belonging to the same production series or group have a potential defect, then it is possible to classify all the products in that group or series as defective, without there being any need to show that the product in question was actually defective.

As the Advocate General noted:

“Making proof of a lack of safety subject to the actual occurrence of damage would disregard the preventative function assigned to EU legislation on the safety of products offered on the market…”

While a product may be classed as defective under Article 6(1), it is still necessary for a claimant to prove a causal relationship between the defect and the damage the claimant has suffered, under Article 4, in order to be awarded compensation. In Boston, the ECJ stated that in order to assess whether the damage suffered by patients resulting from surgery to remove and replace the devices had the requisite causal connection, it was necessary for national Courts to consider whether the operations were necessary and proportionate. In other words, to be compensated the claimants had to demonstrate that the operations were likely to avert the risk of the failure in question and there was no less damaging alternative.

The impact of the Boston decision

The Boston decision is, undoubtedly, highly fact specific. It relates to a class of products in which a user is particularly vulnerable to potentially catastrophic damage if the product fails. Similarly, the remedy in order to rectify a potential defect is an operation, which is risky, painful and may cause lasting damage to a patient. The damage suffered by the patients in Boston (in having the potential defect remedied through another operation) occurred even though the potential defect had not yet materialised.

It is therefore questionable whether the Boston decision has an application outside the healthcare sector. Some commentators have, however, suggested that other scenarios exist where the criteria in Boston could come into play and potentially defective products within the same class could be deemed ‘defective’ under Article 6(1) due to their abnormal potential to cause damage to a user if potentially defective. This could include products used by children, vehicles or safety equipment, for example. The case could have an application in a scenario where installed fire safety equipment in a person’s home is found to be potentially defective. It may then be necessary to cause damage to the fabric of the building in order to remedy the potential defect. The defect would not yet have materialised, but the home owner would have suffered loss as a result of the steps necessary to protect against the defect occurring.

The terms of the Product Liability Directive are incorporated into English law by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (the “CPA”). The CPA mirrors the requirements of the Directive as to what constitutes a ‘defect’. We have yet to see whether the English Courts follow the approach in Boston and widen the scope of what can be categorised as a defective product. However, some recent decisions have demonstrated a willingness on the English Courts’ part (when determining whether a defect has caused the loss suffered) to find that a defective product has caused the loss, even where a claimant has not been able to identify the specific defect that has occurred.1 This could indicate that the English Courts are open to giving the principles set out in Boston a wider application outside the sector of medical implantable devices.

In the specific context of healthcare, it appears that the decision in Boston will be significant. It is not yet clear how the Court’s ruling will impact on product liability insurance policies taken out by manufacturers of medical devices. Given the potential for an increase in claims, however, it seems likely that premiums for many manufacturers will rise. Manufacturers will also need to check whether their insurance covers the costs of product replacement surgery which, following the ruling in Boston, manufacturers may now have to bear. Consumers could also potentially be affected by increased prices charged by manufacturers in order to absorb the additional costs of insurance, increased monitoring of the manufacturing process and the implementation of more rigorous internal procedures. This would be an unfortunate side effect for consumers, given that it is likely to be health insurance companies, not the patients themselves, who will bring product liability claims against producers.

1 Hufford v Samsung Electronics Limited [2014], which considered the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ide v ATB Sales Ltd, Lexus Financial Services (t/a Toyota Financial Services (UK) Plc) v Russell [2008]

Despite the record fines levied by US and UK regulators throughout 2015, there is no sign of prosecutions, extraditions and compensation claims slowing down as we move into the tail end of the year. With the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) securing special funding from the Treasury to pursue at least 12 others in relation to LIBOR fixing, and the case of Navinder Singh Sarao testing the mechanics of existing extradition treaties, the financial world continues to shake under ever-increasing regulatory scrutiny.

Read the full article