The jurisdiction to bring claims in the employment tribunal derives from statute (eg the unfair dismissal jurisdiction derives from the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996)). Time limits, or limitation periods, for presenting such claims are also to be found in the relevant statute (eg the three-month time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim is at ERA 1996, s 111). Failure to bring a claim within the relevant time limit puts the claim outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the tribunal cannot hear it unless it decides that time should be extended according to the relevant principles applying to that sort of claim. Consideration should also be given to

Identifying the parties to a contract In a situation where a company operates under one or more trading names, then it is the company (a legal entity) behind the trading name which is the contractual party; a trading name by itself has no legal personality to contract by. For further information as to the different business vehicles available for a business to operate through, see Practice Note: Forms of business vehicle. Where a company operates under a trading name then, within a contract entered into by that company, the contracting party is usually expressed to be, eg: Example Company Limited trading as Example Trading Name (with company registration number 123456). Although helpful, it is not essential to specify the trading name of the company in the ‘parties’ section to the contract as it is the company (not the trading name)

You may wish to consider the obligations of the employment business and the hirer under: • the relevant employment agencies and employment businesses legislation • the relevant health and safety legislation Employment agencies and employment businesses legislation An employment business (often known as an agency) is a business that arranges temporary work for work-seekers with a 'hiring company'; the temporary worker (often referred to as an 'agency worker') is paid by the agency rather than by the company to which they are supplied (usually known as 'the supply of temporary workers' or 'the supply of agency workers') generally. For further information, see Practice Note: Employment agencies and employment businesses—Scope of the legislation. Regulations 18 and 19 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, SI 2003/3319 (Conduct Regs 2003) set out relevant information provision obligations. An employment

Commercial analysis: Recent high-profile franchise disputes have put the spotlight back on a long-standing question: is the UK’s self-regulatory model still enough to protect franchisees, franchisors and the reputation of the sector? Cases involving major brands, including reports concerning Vodafone franchisees and the wider lessons drawn from the Post Office scandal, have prompted renewed concern about power imbalances, contractual pressure and the position of small business owners who invest substantial personal capital in franchise opportunities. In Parliament, these concerns have been linked to calls for closer scrutiny of franchise arrangements and whether existing protections under general contract, competition, consumer, intellectual property and trading laws provide an adequate framework for this particular business model. The debate is therefore not simply whether legislation would protect franchisees. It is whether a statutory regime would improve standards without undermining one of the UK’s most accessible and effective routes to business growth. Written by Fiona Boswell of Knights Plc.

Financial Services analysis: Will regulation of Bitcoin in the UK make the virtual currency less attractive? David Cook of Pannone, Simon Halberstam of Kingsley Napley, and Garrick Hileman of the London School of Economics’ Economic History Department, comment on the risks and advantages of virtual currencies and the likely implications of regulation.

Whether there is UK infringement in the above circumstances depends upon: • where the goods of the trade mark owner were put on the market • whether the goods were put on the market by the trade mark owner/with its consent, and • whether the trade mark in the advertisement by the UK-based importer is used descriptively or to make a fair comparison Grey market goods Grey market goods are genuine, non-counterfeit goods of the trade mark owner. They have, however been imported into an economic area and sold there without the consent of the trade mark owner. See Practice Notes: Parallel imports—UK and Parallel imports—EU. Goods put on the market in the EEA Once goods are put on the market in the EEA by a trade mark owner or with its consent, the trade mark owner’s rights are ‘exhausted’ in all Member States

This Q&A will quote the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) as the primary UK legislation. The starting point in this factual matrix is to determine whether there is a prima facie case of trade mark infringement before turning to consider applicable defences. Under TMA 1994, s 10(1), a person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered. Furthermore, that use must affect or be liable to affect the functions of the trade mark, in particular the ability to guarantee the origin of the goods or services (Arsenal v Reed), guarantee the quality of the goods or services,

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that: • the consumer is a natural person who satisfies the relevant definitions of ‘consumer’ in the various legislation referred to below and took all the steps necessary on their part for the conclusion of a consumer contract in Scotland and is deemed to have their habitual residence (as defined by applicable legislation) there • the English company is acting in the exercise of its trade or profession and pursues its commercial or professional activities to which the contract relates in Scotland or by any means directs such activities to Scotland or to several countries including Scotland • the position in respect of non-contractual claims (eg tort, delict and negligence) has not been considered Unfair terms Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), terms in business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts must be fair and transparent.

Under section 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), in relation to an employee who has a protected characteristic, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against that employee: • as to the employee’s terms of employment • in the way the employer affords the employee access, or by not affording the employee access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service • by subjecting the employee to any other detriment Age is a protected characteristic, see Practice Note: Age, gender reassignment, race

Position for busines-to-consumer transactions provided by consumer protection legislation The right to cancel a contract concluded by distance selling (ie not in a face-to-face setting, but online or by postal order) is ordinarily governed by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/3134 (CCR 2013). The CCR 2013 provide that a consumer can exercise the right to cancel at any time within the cancellation period without giving a reason (CCR 2013, SI 2013/3134, reg 29). However, the right to cancel does not apply to those contracts listed in the regulations 27 to 28 of the CCR 2013, which include contracts for passenger transport services. Therefore, specifically in respect of air

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967) and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) gave long leasehold tenants an individual and collective right respectively to buy the freehold of their house or block of flats, as the case may be. In addition to conferring the collective right of enfranchisement, LRHUDA 1993 widened the number of houses which could be the subject of individual enfranchisement. If the house or block of flats in question were the only property in the landlord’s portfolio, then this would not present any great problems for the landlord. However, potentially serious estate management issues might arise if the landlord were compelled under either LRA 1967 or LRHUDA 1993 to enter into involuntary and piecemeal sales of its portfolio. Thus, both LRA 1967 and LRHUDA

An agreement for lease is a contract and it will be freely assignable unless it contains an express prohibition on assignment. Most commercial agreements for lease will incorporate the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (SCPCs)(either the Second or Third editions). The SCPCs provide that the buyer (or tenant) may not assign the benefit of the contract