Winning the Immigration Vote: how immigration could feature in the next UK election

With a general election expected this year, immigration is bound to be a theme that all political parties use to signal to key voter demographics.

Where are voters on ‘immigration’?

Currently, according to YouGov, the Conservatives are only the most popularly party among the over-70s. The majority of Britons under-50 say will vote for Labour.

The UK’s last election was in 2019. At that time, YouGov polls suggested that 22% of voters considered immigration as the most important factor facing the country. This has now risen to 39% with only healthcare and the economy ranking higher. Immigration is currently considered a more important issue facing the UK than education, housing, the environment and family life and childcare.

38% of those polled by YouGov consider the level of immigration in the UK to have been mostly bad for the country. Only 21% of respondents expressed a positive opinion towards immigration during the last ten years of a Conservative government. 65% of respondents believe that immigration has been too high in the last ten years.

Given the above numbers, it isn’t surprising that 82% of the UK consider the current government to be badly handling the issue of immigration in the UK. 20% of the country now believe that Labour would be the best political party to handle asylum and immigration. This is only 3% up from before the 2019 election, but critically the number of people with faith in the Conservatives on immigration has halved from 32% to 16%.

It appears that immigration is a very significant issue for voters in the UK, who believe that immigration levels have been too high in the past ten years and that the Conservatives have failed to impact it. In terms of what factors in particular Britons consider important for immigration, the latest YouGov trackers suggest that:

  • The current levels of people with low levels of education and skills looking for low paid work in the UK are at the right level.
  • The current levels of wealthy people looking to live in the UK based on investing in the UK are at the right level.
  • We should allow more people to come to the UK to work in the British health service.
  • The current levels of people coming to the UK to study are at the right level.
  • The current levels of skilled workers coming to the UK to look for skilled jobs are at the right level.

In fact, in most areas of immigration, respondents to various YouGov polls suggest that immigration is a significant national issue whilst simultaneously being at the right level for each of its component parts.

Immigration in general is seen as too high, but each separate area of work or study related immigration is at the right level.

The Channel wall

It’s probably no surprise then that Labour and Conservatives are focusing their messaging on Channel crossings. Border integrity has proven a highly emotive subject for voters globally, whether it be building a wall, ending “free” movement or preventing islands being reached by boat. Crossing the Channel to reach the UK is symbolic of unrestricted immigration and triggers those who want to feel safe that the identity of Great Britain is secure.

Since only 1.3% of those arriving by small boats were removed from the UK between 2018 and 2023, it would appear that most people arriving by boat to the UK make a valid claim to remain in the UK as refugees. They have a case for remaining, but they are illegally entering. Since there is no way to legally enter the UK to make a claim for asylum and airlines are bound by law to check for a right to enter the UK, it would appear that the Channel crossers are extremely short of options.

It is positive that neither party demonises the individuals making the journey and the language is changing to focus on the criminal gangs making a trade from the trafficking of people. The Labour party are proposing a deal whereby the EU provides support with preventing Channel crossings in exchange for accepting a share of refugees arriving to the EU. The Conservatives have just agreed a deal with the EU to co-operate closer on information to prevent Channel crossings.

The impact of the many other elections taking place this year may also impact on anti-migration in the UK election too, since most recent elections in Europe have seen rises in more nationalist parties. The fact that the UK has already had Brexit might impact any such influence, however. The UK has already “taken back control of its borders” in that respect.

 Making work immigration work

Little is known on either the Conservatives or Labour Party’s policies on work-related immigration. James Cleverly looks to be taking actions to reduce visas that allow an unlimited work right, such as care worker and student dependants, UK spouses and Graduate visa holders. The focus appears to be in restricting low-skilled workers from overseas into the domestic labour market, despite YouGov respondents voting that the current levels are at the right level.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is already reminding the Conservatives of the trebling of net migration and looks to be focusing on less reliance for overseas workers for shortage occupations and an increase in training and upskilling the domestic labour market. The current government imposes charges of £1000 per year to sponsor a worker from overseas as an incentive to invest more in training, and so perhaps a Labour government will replace the Immigration Skills Charge with a requirement for sponsors to provide evidence of a sufficient level of internal training programmes.

Out of the shadow cabinet

With a likely Labour election victory and Yvette Cooper as Home Secretary, what would we expect in terms of immigration policy?

Cooper was chair of Labour’s refugee taskforce and has been Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee since 2016, interviewing dozens of professionals on immigration during that time. She has always voted against stronger laws and enforcement of immigration rules and generally voted against a stricter asylum system. Cooper generally voted for continuing close ties with Europe during Brexit. We could expect a very different Home Secretary to the pro-Rwanda plan, pro-Brexit Cleverly.

 

This article was written by Oliver O’Sullivan, Head of Immigration at Wellers Law Group. You get get in touch with Oliver by email for enquiries relating to the contents of this article.

How to meet the spouse salary requirement

The partner of a person who is “settled” in the United Kingdom requires financial sponsorship from their settled partner. A person is considered to be “settled” in the United Kingdom if they are British, Irish or have Indefinite Leave to Remain status. A partner is a person to whom the settled person is married, in a civil partnership with, or with whom they have cohabited for at least two years.

To sponsor a partner, the settled person needs to provide evidence of meeting a financial requirement. This is a requirement that evidences that the couple will have sufficient income to cover the length of the visa. Unless the settled worker’s partner is already in the UK and allowed to work, is it only the income of the settled worker that can be counted for the application.

From 4th April, the minimum income amount to sponsor a partner increases by 56% from £18,600 to £29,000. The financial requirement can be met in a number of ways as we explore below.

 

Employment

A settled person can be in salaried employment, earning at least £29,000 per annum. They can be outside the UK earning at least that amount and have a job offer in the UK for a position earning at least that amount, or they can be in the UK and working in a job earning at least that amount. Depending on how long they have been in this employment they may need to also evidence prior earnings of at least £29,000 too.

Self-employment

Similar to employment, a settled person can be self-employed as a sole trader or partner of a business or as a director of a limited company and provide evidence of had a taxable income of at least £29,000 in their last tax year.

Cash savings

To calculate the amount needed to cover each 2.5-year visa, either the settled person and/or their partner can evidence holding £88,500 in cash savings at the date of application. This amount covers 2.5 years of £29,000 per year in addition to £16,000. The savings can be held as investments previously but must be liquidised for the date of application. This cash or investment portfolio needs to have been held for at least 6 months to be counted.

Other regular income

A settled person can also include regular income from rent, a pension, maintenance payments from a former partner, dividends from shares, interest from savings, allowances, maintenance grants or stipends, as long as they will be in receipts of these payments for the duration of their partner’s visa.

Combinations of the above

The above sources of income can all be combined to reach the minimum amount of £29,000, whether it be a salary that is supplemented by savings or a pension combined with income from rent, there are various ways of combining income to reach the minimum salary level.

The immigration rules are very strict about how this income is evidenced, so it is advisable to seek advice before submitting an application as immigration fees are non-refundable.

 

 

Skilled Worker salary increases: FAQ

 

  1. What is the new minimum salary level for sponsoring workers as Skilled Workers?

It depends on the job role. The minimum salary for a standard Skilled Worker application is rising from £26,200 to £38,700 per annum as a gross base salary. However, each job role also has its own minimum salary level that also needs to be met. For example, the ‘Business Development Manager’ role that is currently under SOC code 3545 currently has a minimum salary of £35,100. This will increase by 50% to £52,500 from 4 April under SOC code 3556.

 

  1. When will this increase commence?

The increase will apply to any new Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) assigned after 4 April 2024. Once a CoS has been assigned (i.e. paid for), it has to be “used” in an application within 3 months. The start date for the job cannot be more than 3 months from the date of application. The current salary level could be used for anyone starting a new position up to the end of September 2024 if managed correctly by assigning a CoS before 4 April 2024.

The Sponsor Management System will be out off service on 3 April 2024, so all CoS will need to be assigned by 7pm on 2 April 2024.

 

  1. Can the salary include any allowances?

The minimum salary level only includes basic gross pay before income tax and including employee pension and national insurance contributions.

 

  1. Can the salary be pro-rated?

 

The minimum salary is based upon a 37.5-hour week. Where the weekly hours are higher than 37.5, the salary will be pro-rated. For example, a salary of £38,700 based on a 37.5-hour week would need to be £40,248 if based on a 39-hour week.

Part-time positions would need to earn the minimum salary based on a 37.5-hour week. A 22.5-hour week, for example, would need to earn at least the SOC code minimum or the minimum salary of £38,700, whichever is higher.

 

  1. Does this salary change apply to anyone who is already on a Skilled Worker visa?

 

The salary change applies to anyone being sponsored using a CoS assigned after 4 April 2024. No changes need to be made to the salaries of anyone currently being sponsored on a CoS issued before this date.

An extension application will require a new CoS, however. If an extension application is happening after 4 April 2024, then the higher minimum salary levels will then apply. If this presents an issue in terms of being able to increase the salary level at that point, it might be worth considering making the extension application before 4 April 2024, even if the employee currently has a visa with an expiry date after then.

 

Get in touch with Oliver O’Sullivan for any enquiries relating to skilled worker salary increases.

 

 

 

 

 

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023

These changes which are in effect from 4th March 2024 have been enacted to enhance the role of the Registrar of Companies and Companies House as a proactive regulator building on the changes introduced under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022.

 

The principal changes include:

  • Registered office – all companies must now have an “appropriate address” at all times. This means that companies will no longer be able to use a PO box as their registered address and the address must be one where an acknowledgement of receipt of delivery can be obtained

 

  • Email address – companies will need to provide a registered email address which will need to be monitored. This will be used for communications with Companies House and will not be publicly available

 

  • Lawful purpose – upon incorporation the subscribers of the company will need to confirm that they are forming for a lawful purpose and subsequently when filing the company’s annual confirmation statement there will need to be a statement that the company’s future activities are lawful

 

  • Company names – there are expanded restrictions on company names, including potential restrictions on names which could be used to facilitate dishonesty or deception

 

  • Annotations – Companies House will be able to annotate the Register where information appears misleading or incorrect

 

  • Companies House –may use data matching software to identify and remove inaccurate information from the Register

 

  • Powers of the Registrar – Companies House will have additional powers to scrutinise and reject company information which appears incorrect or inconsistent with existing filings

 

  • Data – the Registrar will have the power to share data with other governmental departments and law enforcement agencies.

 

UK companies will need to become aware of these important changes and ensure that they comply with the provisions since in some cases failure to do so could lead to criminal liability for the company and its officers.

Get in touch with Wellers Law Group to assist you with any changes which need to be made in terms of proper compliance.

 

This article was written by Howard Ricklow, our head of Company and Commercial law. To connect with Howard and to enquire about his services, please email howard.ricklow@wellerslawgroup.com or call him on  020 7481 6396.

 

EU Settlement Scheme: five years on and still unresolved

Late Applications

The EU settlement scheme, which ran from 28 August 2018 to 30 June 2021, enabled EU nationals and their family members to remain in the UK following the Brexit vote. To date, almost 8 million applications have been made.

Nearly 600,000 applications have been made after the deadline. For scale, this is more than double the number of applications made in the Skilled Worker visa category over the same time.

How can applications be accepted so long after the deadline, and how can employers manage this scenario?

 

Reasonable delay

There are many reasons why there have been so many delays in applications. Many EU nationals who have been living in the UK were unaware of the need to make an application. The application being accessible via a mobile app made life easier for many people but was also an issue for those who were less comfortable with technology. Others made applications that were refused and delayed in submitting new applications and others were refused without knowing.

The Home Office advises that there remains scope ‘indefinitely’ for a person eligible for status under the EU Settlement Scheme to make an application where ‘in light of all the circumstances and reasons, there are reasonable grounds for their delay in making their application’. This means that if a person qualifies for the scheme by virtue of their residence in the UK before 31 December 2020, an application can still be made if that delay can be reasonable explained.

Where a lot of time has passed since the deadline for applications, the reasonable test becomes more difficult to provide for. Applicants need to provide objective evidence for the reason for delay for the entire period of delay. For example, if a person missed the deadline owing to illness, the evidence of illness needs to cover the entire intervening period, not only part of that period.

 

Right to work issues

There was no requirement for employers to check their current employees had applied under the EU Settlement Scheme, only to check those joining the company after the scheme had closed. Therefore, many companies could be employing workers who either never made an application, had an application refused, or who did make an application for pre-settled status that then lapsed. In these three scenarios these companies are employing workers who do not have permission to work in the UK.

In the case of workers who were already employed, the company is secure with having a statutory excuse against civil penalties. However, in the case of those employed post 30 June 2021, there could be EU employees in the company who do not have the right to work. Penalties for employing illegal workers are now £45k per illegal worker, so what actions can be taken?

Audit the right to work of the whole workforce. It is always a good idea to recheck that you have the right documents for every employee, and it is important not to discriminate in terms of which nationalities are audited. For any EU nationals employed after the scheme deadline, check that no applications are unresolved and check for expiry dates of pre-settled status.

Our team have audited companies small and large, and it is always seen as a positive for the Home Office to be proactively reviewing retrospectively. There is always something to remedy in every audit we have undertaken, so do reach out to us for an initial conversation about how we can support your company remaining compliant.

 

This article was prepared by Oliver O’Sullivan, our Head of Immigration, who you can contact by email at Oliver.OSullivan@wellerslawgroup.com or by phone at 020 7481 2422.

Illegal working civil penalties in the food sector

Huge fines for the food sector:

Between 1 July and 30 September 2023, the government issued £985,000 in illegal worker civil penalties to companies based in London and the South East of England. 47% of these civil penalties were issued to companies in the restaurant and take away sectors who were collectively fined £465,000.

With fines to individual companies as high as £90,000, the impact of employing someone illegally puts a lot of companies out of business. What is it about this sector that makes it so prone to illegal working and companies being penalised?

 

How civil penalties are issued:

Companies are fined for failing to take the proper steps to prevent hiring someone who does not have permission to work in the UK. Between July and September last year, companies would be issued a penalty of £15,000 per illegal worker for a first breach. This £15,000 penalty could then be reduced in increments if the company have good procedures in place to check a new employer’s right to work.

As of February this year, these first-time breach civil penalties have been increased to £45,000 per illegal worker. That same company that faced a fine of £90,000 would now be fined £270,000 for the same offence.

In some instances, either knowingly employing a person who does not have the right to work or having reasonable cause to believe a person does not have the right to work but hiring them regardless can be criminally prosecuted.

 

Why the food industry is vulnerable to civil penalties:

The food sector is one that is routinely scrutinised by the Home Office. It is not unusual for immigration officials to arrive at one end of a street lined with restaurants, bars and take-aways and work their way through every building, checking the right to work of all employees as they go. I once even had a client whose food factory was even visited by armed officers supporting an immigration visit.

Restaurants often have a high turnover of staff and branches where the right to work is checked by local managers who aren’t always trained. I’ve worked alongside a major global fast-food restaurant to develop training materials and policies across their branches and helped with double checking right to work for candidates and seen first hand the issues faced by human resources in managing restaurants.

Restaurants are often looking for the best talent for a specific cuisine. One restaurant I represented required a very niche set of skills in their chefs that was only commonplace in a particular region of India. Chefs can be sponsored under the Skilled Worker visa scheme, but the minimum salary threshold is set above the median of the market rate. Currently that minimum salary is £26,200 per annum based upon a 39-hour week but will imminently rise to £38,700 per annum. Hiring chefs will soon become a lot more expensive.

The risks with the restaurant sector centre on policies with regards who is hiring and who is then checking the right to work of new employees, which is where the disconnect often lies.

 

What can be done to mitigate the risk:

A company can mitigate the risk of civil penalty by having best practice procedures for checking the right to work and assuring that all relevant hiring managers are trained to the same level. The documents then need to be safely stored, either digitally or physically.

Companies should be familiar of what happens in a Home Office inspection and how to be prepared for one. It is always a good idea to take stock and audit your own documents and processes to understand where any remedial actions need to be taken.

Companies should understand who their employees are, which might mean clarifying the position of some members of the workforce.

Our team has great experience with working with restaurants, fast food chains, bars and public houses. We have undertaken mock inspections, reviewed and rewritten policies and procedures and most of all been on hand to provide advice as and when it is needed.

If you have any concerns about your workforce, we would love to hear from you.

 

This article was prepared by our Head of Immigration, Oliver O’Sullivan who you can reach via email at Oliver.OSulivan@wellerslawgroup.com or by phone 020 7481 2422.

Immigration Changes Coming in 2024

The U.K. Government has announced the dates for a number of changes to visas and immigration legislation which are set to come into force in the first half of 2024.

The changes are set out below:

Date Visa Type Changes
6th February 2024 Immigration Health Surcharge The lower rate surcharge will rise from £470 to £776 per year for visa applicants under the age of 18, students, their dependants and applicants applying for the Youth Mobility scheme visa.
11th March 2024 Health and Care visas The right for care and senior care workers to bring dependents into the country will be removed.
4th April 2024 Skilled Worker visas The minimum salary to sponsor skilled workers will rise from £26,200 to £38,700.

Health and care visas are not included. This change also does not apply to workers in national pay scale occupations e.g. teachers.

4th April 2024 (unconfirmed date) Shortage Occupation List The 20% going rate on the Shortage Occupation List will be removed.

New occupations will be temporarily added to the new immigration salary list as per the recommendations by the Migration Advisory Committee.

6th April 2024 Sponsor Licences All licences expiring on or after the 6th April 2024 will be automatically renewed for 10 years.

If your licence expires before the 6th April, you will be subject to a licence renewal fee depending on whether you are a small, medium or large business.

11th April Family visas The minimum income requirement for spouse/partner visas will rise from £18,600 to £29,000.

 

Got any questions about the new immigration changes?

Get in touch with our immigration team today for enquiries on these changes, for information on managing Sponsor Licences and more:

The right to re-apportion service charges – an important ruling for landlords and tenants

AVIVA INVESTORS GROUND RENT GP LTD AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS) – V – WILLIAMS AND OTHERS (APPELLANTS)

In a decision which will be of importance to residential landlords and tenants, the Supreme Court has ruled to preserve the contractual right within a lease, where provided, for the landlord to re-apportion service charges..

The Background

On 8 February 2023 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of Aviva Investors Ground Rent Gp Ltd and another v Williams and others.

The case had been the subject of litigation over a number of years through various courts, from the First Tier Tribunal finally up to the Supreme Court.

The judgment given by the Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

  1. To what extent is a term in a residential lease which allows the landlord to revise the tenant’s share of the service charges invalidated by section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985?
  2. If the effect is that any discretion to re-apportion the service charge is transferred from the landlord to the First-tier Tribunal does section 27A(6) enable the tenant as well as the landlord to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction?

The dispute concerned the apportionment of service charges payable by leaseholders of 38 individual flats in a building located in Southsea, Hampshire.  The leaseholders were obliged to pay service charges towards the cost to the landlord (Aviva Investors Ground Rent Gp Ltd) of maintaining the building and wider estate.  Within their long leases, there was a clause which provided for the payment of service charges by residential leaseholders as either a fixed percentage of the costs or “such part as the landlord may otherwise reasonably determine”.

The landlord had for many years been demanding service charge payments in proportions different to (and above) the fixed percentages provided in the leases, under the provision for re-apportionment of service charges.   The leaseholders issued proceedings against the landlord seeking to challenge that practice.

Section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 gives the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT) jurisdiction to make decisions about service charge payments, including whether they are payable and if so, in what amounts.  The leaseholders had argued that the effect of section 27A(6) was to render void the apportionment provision in the leases.

As stated above, the case had been litigated over a number of years, finally culminating in an appeal by the leaseholders to the Supreme Court.  Previously, the FTT had held that the relevant provision in the leases was not void and that the re-apportionments were reasonable.  Subsequently, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) ruled that the re-apportionment provision was void pursuant to s 27A(6).   The landlord had appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling that the re-apportionment provision was not wholly void and that the effect of s 27A(6) was to transfer the discretion to vary the service charge proportions from the landlord to the FTT.  The leaseholders appealed to the Supreme Court.

The central question in the appeal was whether section 27A(6) renders void a contractual provision in a lease which provides for a leaseholder to pay a fixed proportion of service charges or such other proportion as the landlord may determine.   The leaseholders had, in relation to this, maintained that the apportionments by the landlord were unreasonable.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding that the revised apportionments of service charges by the landlord were valid.

The court held that section 27A(6) was plainly an anti-avoidance provision, designed to preserve the jurisdiction of the FTT in determining whether service charges were reasonable in amount.   It was not the effect of section 27A(6) to deprive a landlord of its managerial decision making.  In other words, it did not operate to prevent the landlord from exercising a contractual right to revise and re-apportion service charges, merely to maintain the jurisdiction of the FTT in determining the reasonableness of the amounts in question.   The Court found that a lease provision would however be void if it aimed to oust or limit the jurisdiction of the FTT in determining the reasonableness of a service charge, for instance a provision making the landlord’s decision binding.

The Court found that section 27A(6) was not intended to remove the ability to vary service charge apportionments.  In this regard it rejected the leaseholders’ approach, finding that the effect of this would be to remove altogether the power to vary service charges.  This would have the effect of having apportionment fixed for many decades over the full term of a lease, even where the apportionment might overwise be varied, for instance by the increase of additional contributing flats in a building.  That would be a commercially unattractive result clearly not intended by the parties.

The result will be welcome to landlords as it confirms  the contractual right where contained within a lease to re-apportion service charges and the ability of the landlord to make managerial decisions in this regard.  It is also an important reminder of the jurisdiction and ability of the FTT to assess the reasonableness and amount of service charges.   This will no doubt be of consequence to many residential landlords and tenants throughout the country.

This article is not intended and should not be relied upon for legal advice,  Should you wish to discuss your matter, please contact Joe Reeves of our Litigation Department on 0207 481 6383 or joe.reeves@wellerslawgroup.com.

What are the valid reasons for terminating employment?

We often find that employers can feel that it is almost impossible to dismiss an employee.

Whilst we would advise that employers always seek advice before terminating an employee’s employment (or starting any process towards this), with the right advice and guidance, this can be a straight forward process.

 The Law

By law, to lawfully dismiss an employee with more than 2 years’ service, you must show that you have a valid reason that you can justify and that you acted reasonably in all the circumstances.

Fair reasons for dismissal

Under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) there are various valid reasons for terminating employment. These include:

  • Redundancy
  • Conduct
  • Capability
  • Breach of a statutory restriction
  • For some other substantial reason

Dismissal due to redundancy

In this changing economic climate, many companies have had to restructure themselves to keep their competitive edge, to improve or simply to survive.

In short, redundancy occurs when an employer needs to reduce the size of the workforce. There are many reasons why this might be the case, including:

  • The introduction of new technology that makes certain jobs unnecessary
  • The job a person was hired to do no longer exists
  • The business is closing down or a change in location
  • There is a need to cut costs and staff numbers might therefore be reduced

Redundancy as a form of dismissal can be considered fair as long as there is a genuine reason for the redundancy, a lawful process has been followed and a fair selection criteria has been applied.

Our specialist employment team can help guide you through any potential redundancy process to seek to ensure that you follow the processes which you are required to, so as to minimise potential liabilities and follow best practice.

Termination due to misconduct 

Misconduct issues could include things like persistent lateness or unauthorised absences from work, while performance issues could include an inability to keep up with important changes to their job or to get along with work colleagues.
That said, unless any misconduct or performance issues are especially serious, you will need to give an employee the opportunity to change their behaviour or the chance to improve their performance prior to making any decision to dismiss. You may also need to provide suitable training.

In some cases, however, the misconduct may be so serious so as to justify summary dismissal. This is known as gross misconduct, where terminating employment without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, can be lawful, as long as you follow a fair process and there is clear evidence to support your finding.

Termination due to capability

You can lawfully dismiss an employee if they are incapable of doing their job to the required standard or they are capable but unwilling to do their job properly.

Capability dismissal should follow prior reasonable attempts by the employer to understand, manage and improve employee capability issues.

Performance reviews and discussions with employees should be ongoing. When performance is monitored and reviewed regularly, there are more opportunities for feedback and for identifying and resolving problems. The goal should be to establish why the employee’s performance is lacking, provide support and then work towards a legally compliant dismissal if necessary.

Throughout the capability management procedure, it will be crucial to have evidence to demonstrate how the employee is falling short of the standards required and as proof of performance management measures taken by the employer.

Illness will also fall under this sub-heading

It is possible to fairly dismiss an employee by reason of a longstanding illness or prolonged absence through sickness where this has affected their ability to do their job or has made it impossible for them to do their job at all.

However, where a capability issue is linked to someone’s long-term disability of physical or mental health, dismissal should be used as a last resort after exploring ways in which you can help the employee to do their job. This could include arranging an occupational health assessment to determine what, if any, reasonable adjustments can be made to assist them, such as a phased return to work, amended duties, altered hours or workplace adaptations.

Dismissal due to a breach of a statutory restriction

This reason is rarely used when terminating employment but can be necessary where continuing to employ someone would mean that you are breaking the law.

Examples of statutory restriction dismissals could include:

  • If an employee’s immigration status prevents them from working, such as their work visa expiring, it would be illegal to carry on employing them.
  • If an employee is required to drive as a substantial part of their role and has lost their licence, and there is no alternative work they can do
  • If someone fails to earn or maintain a qualification that is required for them to perform their job.

If you suspect or become aware of a change in an employee’s working status, you should arrange an initial discussion with them to discuss their situation. The employment contract should include provision for dismissal without notice if the employee is found to have lost the right to work, as this would constitute a breach of contract.

Termination due to some other substantial reason (SOSR)

The concept of “some other substantial reason” (SOSR) is a statutory catch-all provision that allows an employer to fairly dismiss an employee in circumstances where no other potentially fair reasons apply.

The SOSR depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there is no helpful statutory definition of the term ‘substantial’, but it cannot be anything frivolous or insignificant.

Case law has provided some examples where the courts have found that an employee was fairly dismissed for SOSR. These include:

  • Third party pressure;
  • The employee refuses to accept new terms of employment;
  • Personality clash between two or more employees;
  • Conflict of interest;
  • Expiry of a fixed term contract;
  • Reputational risk; and
  • Business reorganisation that doesn’t fall under the statutory definition of redundancy.

Employers must also act reasonably and follow an appropriate procedure before dismissing the employee. Alternatives to dismissal, such as moving the employee to a different location or department, should always be considered before moving to dismissal. However, whether this can be achieved tends to pivot on the resources and size of the organisation in question.

If you have any issues with regard to termination of employment please contact Nina Francis on 0203 831 2664 or email Nina on nina.francis@wellerslawgroup.com

 

Payment under a construction contract and the right to adjudicate

We continue to receive a number of enquiries from contractors and sub-contractors unaware of their right to adjudicate under a construction contract for non-payment, despite the fact statutory adjudication was introduced 25 years ago.

Many clients have come to us after being advised by previous solicitors to commence County Court proceedings, which can be a lengthy and costly process, by which time the paying party may be insolvent.

Alternatively, clients have commenced insolvency proceedings and fall at the first hurdle if there is a genuine dispute. A client will be subject to a costs order if the debtor has been successful in setting aside a statutory demand, which is a precursor to liquidation of a company or the bankruptcy of an individual.

Adjudication

Adjudication is a way of resolving disputes in construction contracts. The right to adjudicate is governed by S.108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”). The Act sets out certain procedural requirements which enable either party to a dispute, to refer the matter to an adjudicator, who is then required to reach a decision within 28 days of being served with the Referral Notice.

If a construction contract does not comply with these requirements, a statutory default scheme known as the Scheme for Construction Contracts will apply. If the construction contract contains adjudication provisions, but does not comply with the requirements of S.108, the Scheme will again apply.

The Referring Party of a dispute who appoints an adjudicator, has the added advantage that, its solicitors have spent weeks/months preparing for the adjudication, putting the other party (the Responding Party) on the back foot, with little time to prepare a Response.  This may result in payment being made before an adjudicator has reached his/her decision.

In the event that the losing party does not comply with the adjudicator’s decision, enforcement proceedings can be commenced in the Technology & Construction Court (“the TCC”) and you would normally apply for Summary Judgment. The TCC will enforce adjudication decisions without enquiring as to the correctness, subject to two exceptions.

The purpose of adjudication is to expedite cash flow during the construction contract and it is not uncommon to have multiple adjudications, throughout the duration of a project, but not adjudicated at the same time.

The payment terms of a construction contract are also regulated by Part II of the Act. So, before you decide to commence an adjudication, do you have a construction contract?

A construction contract

 A construction contract is defined by  the Act and are agreements for any of the following:

  • carrying out of construction operations.
  • providing one’s own labour, or the labour of others, for the carrying out of construction operations.
  • arranging for the carrying out of construction operations by others e.g. under a sub-contract.
  • It extends to architectural, design, advice on building, interior or exterior decoration, engineering, demolitions, surveying work and on the laying-out of landscape.
  • Installation of mechanical, electrical and heating works. to include maintenance of the works.
  • A collateral warranty as to the carrying out of construction work. Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’ Rourke Wales and West Ltd [2013] EWHC 2665 (TCC).Whether you can adjudicate will depend upon the timing and the wording of the warranty. Timing is paramount: Toppan Holdings Ltd & Anor v Simply Construct (UK) LLP [2021] EWHC 2110 (TCC).
  • Government contracts are construction contracts under the Act.

Exclusions

The following are excluded from being a construction contract:

  • Agreements which primarily relate to the financing of works
  • Development agreements containing provision for the disposal of an interest in land
  • Contracts between employers and employees.
  • Supply only contracts: manufacture and delivery of building/engineering, unless the contract also provides for their installation on site
  • Oil and gas exploration, mining and industries plants
  • Contracts with residential occupiers that occupy or intend to occupy the property

All construction contracts, except those with a duration of less than 45 days, must contain a right to instalments, stage payments or other periodic payments.

The Act prohibits withholding or reduction of payments, except after proper notice and prohibits pay-when-paid clauses, except in circumstances of insolvency.  The Act provides a right to suspend performance for non-payment.

Payment under the Act

The Act has the following provisions regarding payment:

  1. It requires a construction contract to provide for interim payments.
  2. It requires the contract to provide a mechanism for determining what sums became due and when is the due date.
  3. It requires the contract to provide a final date for payment which would be later than the due date
  4. The contract must require the employer to serve a payment notice within five days of the due date
  5. If an Employer wishes to resist paying a contractor’s final account, it is obliged to serve a pay less notice

Payment notices and pay less notices

A valid payment notice confirms the sum to be paid by way of an interim or final payment or any other payment provided for in the contract, unless a valid pay less notice is served. S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2448 at [37]–[42].

If an employer (owner/developer) fails to serve a valid pay less notice and fails to pay the amount claimed, the contractor will be able to recover the amount claimed by bringing an adjudication, without the adjudicator having to decide the substantive merits of the payment application.

These are known as ‘smash and grab’ adjudications. If you fail to serve a valid pay less notice and wish to obtain a reduction in the amount due or pursue a counterclaim or cross-claim, you will have to pay the full amount first and then pursue the reduction or other claim, by bringing proceedings or by set-off against a subsequent payment. This is known as a true value adjudication.

The notice requirements apply to all payments provided for by the contract: liquidated damages or repayment of overpaid instalments. It also applies to payments due following completion of the works or termination of a contract.

When deciding if a payment notice (or a pay less notice) is valid and complies with the relevant statutory and contractual requirements, it has to be construed objectively –  how a reasonable recipient would have understood the notice.

A payment notice (and a pay less notice) has to make plain that it is a payment notice (or a pay less notice). Each has to set out clearly the sum which is said to be due and/or to be deducted and the basis on which that sum is calculated. This can be zero. Beyond that, the question of whether or not it is a valid notice in accordance with the contract is a matter of fact.

Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 123 (TCC) at [20]–[31] per Coulson J upheld by the Court of Appeal: see S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2448 at [46]–[59].

What happens if the payer does not serve a payment notice?

Section 110B deals with situations where there is a default in service of the payer’s payment notice.  There are two situations:

  1. Where the contract requires the payer to give the payment notice, and a valid notice is not given, the payee may serve a payment notice instead.
  2. Where a contract provides for the payee to make a payment application before the time for the payer’s payment notice, default in service of the payer’s payment notice, makes the application count as the payment notice. The application must be one which states the amount which the payee considers will become due and the basis on which it is calculated, and it must be given in accordance with the contract..

If you have been provided with a construction contract for execution by an employer, it is likely to be a JCT or NEC contract. They have a suite of standard form contracts for use in the construction industry in the UK to help deliver projects.

It sets out the responsibilities of all the parties within the process and their obligations to each other. The intention of these contracts was to give a balanced allocation of risk between the parties. These contracts are prepared by an employer’s construction solicitor, who will have appended to it, the employer’s schedule of contract amendments, with the objective of increasing the liability of the contractor under a contract and reducing the employer’s risk. It will often have amendments to the payment clauses contained in these contracts. For this reason, it is imperative that you obtain legal advice, so you are aware of all pitfalls, and if it is commercially viable for you to enter into the contact. Upon obtaining legal advice, you may be able to re-negotiate certain terms of the contract.

Whether you are an employer, main contractor or sub-contractor. and you require advice in relation to payment notices and pay less notices, under a construction contract, or wish to obtain our Guide to Adjudication, please contact Teresa Johnston on 0207 481 2422, 07584 229 373 or via email at Teresa.Johnston@wellerslawgroup.com