Tesco Ireland to create 400 jobs across 10 new stores
The 10 new stores will be larger supermarkets and smaller Express shops, according to Irish national broadcaster RTÉ.It will bring Tesco's total presence in the Republic to 193 stores.Of the new jobs, 100 will be at Tesco's new Fermoy store in County Cork, which is set to open at the end of July.New Tesco stores will also be opened in Dublin, Galway, Louth and Meath.Ireland's Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment Peter Burke described the jobs announcement as an incredible boost for local towns and the Irish economy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Sign up to our free money newsletter for investment analysis and expert advice to help you build wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Sign up to our free money email for help building your wealth Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT Get a free fractional share worth up to £100. Capital at risk. Terms and conditions apply. Go to website ADVERTISEMENT 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Hong Kong firm appeals for legal protection of investors as its Panama Ports contract faces lawsuits
A subsidiary of a Hong Kong conglomerate entangled in U.S.- China tensions appealed on Friday for legal protection for businesses in the Central American country after the company's contract over its Panama Canal port assets has been faced with lawsuits. Respect for the rule of law is essential to assure businesses that Panama is a safe place to invest in, Panama Ports Company, under Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, said in a statement. Panama's Comptroller General filed two lawsuits on Wednesday, seeking to declare unconstitutional a contract that granted the operation of ports at both ends of the canal to the Hong Kong subsidiary, and to nullify its renewal four years ago, saying it was 'abusive' of Panama's interests. In turn, Panama Ports Company said its operations have had a positive impact, from building world-class ports to creating more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributing billions of balboas — Panama's currency — to the country's economy. It said it wants to work with the government in Panama for a better future. 'Regarding the ongoing legal actions, we firmly believe that respect for legal protection and the rule of law are essential in order to provide businesses and investors with the certainty that Panama is a safe country to invest in,' it said. The company operates the ports of Balboa, in the Pacific, and Cristobal, in the Atlantic, under a concession contract approved in 1997 and renewed in 2021 for 25 more years. CK Hutchison is controlled by the family of Li Ka-shing, the southern Chinese city's richest man. Panama's comptroller authority in April said that an audit of Panama Ports Company found irregularities in the renewal of the concession. But the company denied allegations that it had failed to pay about $1.2 billion to the Central American country. CK Hutchison Holdings' initial plan, announced in March, to sell its port assets in dozens of countries to a group that includes the U.S. investment firm BlackRock Inc., also got caught up in tensions between Beijing and Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump, who has alleged that China interferes with the canal, initially welcomed that plan. However, it apparently angered Beijing and drew a review by Chinese anti-monopoly authorities. After months of uncertainty, Hutchison said on Monday that it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers, which also includes BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited, a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Company. The initial deal, valued at nearly $23 billion, including $5 billion in debt, would have given the consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including the two at the Panama Canal. Panama Ports Company said Friday it would communicate with the Panamanian government 'at the appropriate time,' affirming that it believes engaging with the government 'is vital to discuss the way forward for' the company. Panama's government maintains it has full control over the canal and that the operation of the ports by Hutchison does not mean Chinese control of it.
