Brief history of Newwalk Chambers



Find by month


Find by label

Blog

Chambers Blog

Entries matching label unfair-terms:

Employment Tribunal Claims

08 May 2008, 10:31 by Robert Rees

Labels: direct-access, discrimination, employment, public-access, tribunal, unfair-dismissal, unfair-terms

Chambers' employment barristers act and advise in all employment tribunal matters in Leicester, Nottingham, Birmingham and further afield including disability discrimination, holiday pay, breach of contract and unfair dismissal cases.

 Many employment tribunal claims concern constructive dismissal claims where an employee can resign because of an employers serious breach of contract towards him. In legal parlance he can accept the employer's repudiation of the contract. For this, the employee can rely upon the employer's breach the implied term in the contract of mutual trust and confidence. However employers should be alert to a defence they may have if the employee has first broken the employment contract. If so, the employee is not entitled to claim unfair constructive dismissal by claiming a repudiation by the employer because he has first destroyed the employment relationship. This happened in the recently reported case of RDF Media Group Plc V Clements [2008] IRLR 207 in fact a High Court case, which of course New Walk Chambers employment barrister cover as well.

 There Mr Clements had agreed a 3 - year non-competitive agreement with his employers RDF Media Group which he wished to get out of. The agreement provided that the 3 year period would be reduced to 2 years if the employers unlawfully dismissed him. Clements alleged that the employers had breached the implied term of trust and confidence by inter alia going to the the press with unflattering remarks (that Mr Clements was a "phenomenal egomaniac" and other information. The High Court held that the employer had indeed overstepped the mark by going to the press [other comments made internally that Mr Clements was "a bit dim" did not breach the term] and these were in breach of contract as being a serious attack on his character. However Mr Clements could not rely on the employer's breaches because he himself had been earlier in breach of contract by contacting a competitor of the employer and disclosing confidential information: Mr Clements himself had been disloyal and in breach of his own duty of fidelity.

The result was that Mr Clements had not been unlawfully dismissed by the employer and thus was bound by the full 3 year period of his non-competition agreement with the employer.

Wait for the new direct public access employment barrister's website which will be out soon. New Walk Chambers employment barristers as well as offering their services for employment tribunal claims can now in certain cases offer their services direct to the public.

This applies to employment tribunal claims for both Claimants and Respondents in all areas of employment law.

Written by Robert Rees, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in Employment Law.

0 comments

Bank Overdraft Charges Test Case - The End of the First Chapter

24 Apr 2008, 15:03 by Christopher Jeyes

Labels: bank-charges, breach, commercial-law, contract, overdraft, penalty-clauses, unfair-terms

  After what seems like an eternity, Mr Justice Andrew Smith has released his judgment in the Bank Charges Test Case (Office of Fair Trading v. Abbey National plc and 7 others [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm) - BBC News), dealing with the questions of whether overdraft "penalty" charges are covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083, "the 1999 Regulations") and therefore subject to an assessment of fairness, whether the terms and conditions of the banks who took part in the case were in plain and intelligible language, and whether the relevant terms were penal in nature and therefore unenforceable at common law.

In a gargantuan judgment of 119 pages and 450 paragraphs, which one expects will cause the Courts some headaches when the millions of charge-reclaiming consumers lodge copies of it in support of their claims, Andrew Smith J concludes that the charges levied by the banks are not charges for services provided, and are therefore not excluded from the assessment of fairness by reg.6(2)(b) of the 1999 Regulations. Although the Judge accepted that services are provided when a bank makes payment upon receipt of an instruction from a customer and thereby allows a customer to borrow funds, the way in which such fees had been packaged and expressed did not suggest that they were in fact fees for services, only fees arising from the circumstances in which a transaction took place. In any event, the banks had contended that the fees were part of the "free if in credit" banking structure, and that they financed the system as a whole. Given that situation it is not surprising that the Judge held that the 1999 Regulations do not exclude assessment of such terms.

As expected, "Money Saving Expert" Martin Lewis (from whose website millions of template claim letters have been downloaded) proclaims this decision to be a "major victory" for the consumer, but whilst it certainly does the consumer's case no harm (consumer in the singular because the 1999 Regulations have a bearing only on individual contracts), there is still a long way to go. For a start, the ruling applies only to the terms and conditions of the banks involved in the case, and only the current editions of those terms. The banks could now re-write their terms to clearly express the erstwhile penalty fees as the fees for services provided, or even re-structure their charging regime such that the "free if in credit" system comes to an end, and all bank customers have to pay the price. And of course, there may yet be an appeal to a higher court.

That being said, it is anticipated that the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") will now rapidly produce its conclusions as to the fairness of the "penalty" fees applied by the banks, most probably in line with its decision on credit card default charges, in which charges were generally considered fair if they were £12 or less.

The penalty issue was decided in favour of the banks, the Judge considering that on the terms before him, the fees charged were not occasioned by a breach of contract, because the consumer was not under a relevant contractual obligation. Given that the sum was payable otherwise than on breach of contract, the rules on penalties did not apply. This was an argument I raised in an article in the New Law Journal ("Highly Charged?" 20 April 2007 pp.536-7). Disappointingly for me, my other argument (that by agreeing to an ad hoc overdraft the banks waived any contractual breach and charged a fee pursuant to a variation of the contract) did not find favour with the Judge, but I can take heart from the fact that it seems to have been adopted by the ten QCs appearing for the various banks!

The millions of outstanding bank charge claims will remain on hold for the time being, but I suspect that, unless there is an appeal and a further stay of the claims, the solicitors for the banks, and the courts, had better be steeling themselves for a summer deluge!

Written by Chris Jeyes, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in Contract, Banking, Civil and Commercial Law.

0 comments


Displaying entries 1-2 of 2.



The New Walk Chambers Blog page is only intended to provide an accessible forum for a general overview and discussion of the topics posted on it. It is not meant to be a substitute for taking legal advice in any particular situation and should not be so used. Neither New Walk Chambers nor the author(s) accept any responsibility for anything done or not done on the basis of the contents of the Blog page.


Website developed by Focus New Media