The Chamber of Representatives recently enacted the new Maritime Code, which will replace – to a large extent, but not completely – numerous provisions in several existing codes. The new code is over 470 pages long and consequently cannot be explained in a few lines; however, this article highlights some of the major changes that will be introduced in relation to existing legislation.
How should the weight of a shipment containing damaged goods but usable pallets be calculated, considering that this would form the basis for liability? According to a recent Federal Court of Justice decision, if the pallets are still usable, only the net weight of the goods counts. The court held that it is necessary to look closely at what has been damaged, as the fate of some items is not necessarily the fate of others.
A recent Ontario-based decision creates uncertainty for many Canadian and international employers operating in Canada that include mandatory arbitration clauses in employment or independent contractor agreements, because each province has a similar rule against contracting out of employment standards legislation. If the clauses could be interpreted as limiting the right to file a complaint with the Ministry of Labour or another employment standards regulator, they should be reviewed and revised by the company's lawyers.
The question of whether foreign-flagged ships involved in international trade are subject to value added tax (VAT) when supplying bunkers in Argentina is frequently posed. If a vessel is supplied bunkers in one Argentine port and subsequently calls to another Argentine port before proceeding overseas, this is generally considered to be cabotage and is therefore subject to VAT.
The basic rule 'no wages without work' dictates that employees who perform no work, including those deemed incapable of working, should not receive wages. However, Swiss employment law provides for exceptions in some circumstances. This article addresses the circumstances in which employers must continue to pay employees who are unable to work, how long employers must continue to pay such employees and the circumstances in which employers may request medical certificates.
The Labour Code establishes a dual responsibility in employment relationships – namely, employers are liable for risks generated by their company's activity and employees are liable for damage caused by their wilful acts or gross negligence. In principle, for the courts to hold an employee responsible for wilful misconduct or gross negligence, the employer must prove not only the damage incurred, but also that this is attributable to the employee's wilful act or gross negligence, as interpreted by the courts.
The Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) recently issued a marine notice to further the Cabotage Act's objectives and to ensure strict compliance. It is expected that this notice would, among other things, ensure greater compliance with the cabotage regime and drive wider indigenous participation in offshore marine operations. However, as the NIMASA has not introduced a fine or other punishment for non-compliance, full compliance with the notice cannot be guaranteed.
There are several steps that employers can take to mitigate the risk of their employees leaving to join a competitor. Many employers already offer incentive-based remuneration packages which aim to align their longer-term interests with those of their employees. While such long-term incentive plans, together with a clear communication strategy, can assist with retention, employers should actively consider additional measures.
The Supreme Court recently examined whether certain components of an employee's overall salary are subject to provident fund (PF) contributions. As the Supreme Court has clarified that special allowances paid to employees must be included in the calculation of PF contributions, employers should review and analyse their current salary structures to determine any increase in PF liabilities.
The Takeover Panel recently published a revised version of the Takeover Code to reflect amendments relating to the response statement to its October 2018 consultation on asset valuations and the Financial Conduct Authority's announcement that it will phase out the United Kingdom Listing Authority name. In addition, the panel recently published a rule-making instrument concerning the response statement to its consultation on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.
The final Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations and Regulations Amending the Medical Devices Regulations recently came into force. Their objective is to provide public access to clinical information submitted to Health Canada for drugs for human use and medical device applications. As a result of the regulations, Health Canada published (among other things) a guidance document to help explain aspects of the new regulations, such as the procedures to prepare information for release.
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether a Jones Act seafarer can recover punitive damages in a personal injury suit based on a vessel's unseaworthiness. The court recently heard oral arguments in The Dutra Group v Batterton, which has teed up the issue that will resolve a split among the circuit courts and provide clarity on the availability of punitive damages for seafarers in general maritime law causes of action. It is unclear how the court will rule on this long-contested issue.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed and vacated in part a district court ruling granting the United States' motion for summary judgment. The case raised, among other things, the issue of whether an individual without any ownership interests in a company can face False Claims Act liability for the company's failure to perform a required act to qualify for reimbursement and whether an unsworn statement is sufficient to create a material issue of fact when weighed against facts admitted during a plea colloquy.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently outlined when specific performance will be available in a real estate transaction. This decision is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of acting both in bad faith and without diligence in respect of such a transaction. It is also a reminder that a party to an agreement of purchase and sale cannot insist that time is of the essence if (among other things) it breaches the agreement and does not act in good faith.
A recently signed ministerial order marks the formal introduction of long-awaited periodic payment orders (PPOs) in Ireland. This should be a welcome development for insurers as it will avoid upfront compensation payments in catastrophic injury cases. It will also align the Irish regime of awards in case of catastrophic injury with the UK system, under which PPOs are already available.
A recent Supreme Court decision concerned a mass tort claim and the potential liability of an English parent company for the actions of its foreign subsidiaries. The court found that a duty of care can exist between a parent company and third parties affected by the actions of its subsidiaries, but was reluctant to place limits on the types of case where a parent company might incur a duty of care.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced settlements with 79 investment advisers who self-reported violations of the Investment Advisers Act in connection with the SEC Division of Enforcement Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative. The advisers collectively agreed to return more than $125 million in fees and prejudgment interest to clients.
The Senate recently adopted the Bill on Redress of Mass Damages in Collective Actions (RMDCA). The RMDCA enables representative entities to claim monetary compensation on behalf of their constituents, which provides aggrieved parties with more effective means of redress. The RMDCA also introduces stricter requirements regarding the admissibility of representative entities and the scope of collective action proceedings, along with other procedural changes.
A couple of recent first-instance decisions demonstrate the courts' wide discretion to award costs between parties based on a higher rate of recovery (referred to as an 'indemnity basis'). Such costs are not literally an indemnity – the receiving party does not recover all of their costs from the paying party. While indemnity costs are not the norm, many parties and their legal representatives often seek such costs without sufficient regard to whether this is actually justified.
Defender v HSBC highlights the need for plaintiffs to understand the blameworthiness of all wrongdoers before settling a claim against any of them. This case concerned Defender, a fund which invested with Bernard Madoff and subsequently suffered a loss when Madoff was revealed to be operating the world's largest Ponzi scheme.