USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation)

You probably wouldn't recognise it from the case name but this case results from the closure of the much loved and sorely missed Woolworths.

Employers are obliged to carry out collective consultation with appropriate representatives when proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees from an establishment over a 90-day period: the length of the consultation period is dependent on the number of employees being dismissed. 

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that client money held in un-segregated accounts should be treated the same as client money held in segregated accounts, enabling un-segregated account holders to share in the client money pool on the insolvency of a firm with whom the account is held.

Commercial Agreements -v- Commercial Reality: Supreme Court further develops principles of contractual interpretation?

Rainy Sky S.A. and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50

Summary

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.

On 29 February, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its judgment on the treatment of client money that had not been segregated, or was improperly segregated, as at the date Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) entered administration. The Supreme Court found that:

The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.

USDAW and others v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation) and another ET 3201156/2010

This case concerns the recent news about the protective award made against Woolworths PLC.  Woolworths which employed over 27,000 employees in 814 stores went into administration at the end of November 2008.  Joint administrators were appointed and it went into liquidation.

The Issue

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are: