Latest news with #legalCosts
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
State should ease ‘financial burden' for people facing heavy legal costs at public inquiries, report finds
The 'personal financial burden' of appearing before a Commission of Investigation should be eased by the State, the final report of the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) commission has said. The Commission of Investigation into the controversial sale of Project Eagle has called on the Government to change the 'strict' guidelines for covering the legal costs of those who appear before high-profile public inquiries. It said witnesses who 'diligently' give evidence, submissions and documents can end up in the 'very unfortunate situation' of having to personally pay high legal fees for their participation in the process. At the moment, the guidelines for legal costs under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 says witnesses can recoup some but not all of their legal fees. The current guidelines do not cover instruction fees, brief fees and legal fees incurred while making submissions. READ MORE In the case of the Nama commission, over two-thirds of the legal bills of the so-called 'bad bank' could not be recovered. It is understood that Nama's total legal costs reached €7.5 million, but it only received €2.4 million of that back from the commission. Thirty-six witnesses on behalf of Nama, including past and present employees, offered evidence and submissions over the seven years of the inquiry. All of these witnesses made claims for the payments of their costs. After assessing the claims for costs from Nama with the help of the State Claims Agency , the commission said it believed the current guidelines on legal costs would 'benefit significantly from review and updating'. 'Engaging with a Commission of Investigation can be an onerous task for private individuals, many of whom understandably seek legal advice and assistance in relation to their interaction with a Commission,' the commission stated in its final report to Taoiseach Micheál Martin . 'Witnesses who diligently provide detailed statements, attend to give evidence, provide documents and make submissions may find themselves in the very unfortunate situation of having to discharge significant fees personally due to the strict confines of the guidelines for payment of legal costs.' The commission, whose sole member is Susan Gilvarry, said Nama had tried to recoup 'substantial legal costs', but the commission wasn't able to consider or direct the recovery of any costs not set out in the current guidelines. It pointed out that the recovery of costs was less important in the case of Nama, where a state agency's costs are 'sought to be recovered from a Government department'. But it said that these 'discrete set of circumstances' would not apply in every case, so it recommended that the 'guidelines are revised and clarified to reflect the personal financial burden that witnesses or third parties may be subjected to by virtue of being requested to engage with a Commission of Investigation'. [ Department of Finance to wind down special bank shareholdings unit Opens in new window ] The Department of the Taoiseach did not respond to requests for comment. The report from the Nama commission said that its final costs, from the point it was established in June 2017 to April 2025, were €10.3 million. This included €4.6 million in legal fees, a salary cost of €1.75 million and administrative costs of €1.4 million. Since the late 1990s, the State has spent more than €600 million on tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation, including the €143 million Mahon/Flood Tribunal, the €85 million Commission to inquire into Child Abuse and the €83 million Moriarty Tribunal. In April, the billionaire businessman Denis O'Brien was awarded €5.8 million by the State Claims Agency for the legal costs he faced while a witness for the Moriarty Tribunal between 2001 and 2010.
Zawya
5 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
South Africa: Restraint of trade agreements, blanket ban backfires in Labour Court
It's not uncommon for businesses to want to stop former employees from joining a competitor. But just having a restraint-of-trade clause in a contract doesn't mean it will hold up in court. A recent Labour Court case shows how these clauses can backfire, especially when there's no clear evidence that the business is at risk. What happened? MSA Outsourcing Solutions, a company that supplies remote staff to international clients, tried to stop two former employees from working at a competitor, Exclusive Prep. The employees, who had been service agents, were now working in senior roles at the new company. MSA claimed they could hurt its business by taking clients or using confidential information. MSA asked the court to urgently stop them from working at Exclusive Prep or contacting MSA clients or staff. But the court wasn't convinced. What the court said The judge dismissed the case and ordered MSA to pay the legal costs. Here's why: - The employees weren't senior enough. They didn't have access to sensitive strategy or client data. They were service agents, not decision-makers. - There was no proof of wrongdoing. MSA didn't show that the employees had taken confidential information or poached clients. - The restraint was too broad. It tried to stop them from working in the whole of South Africa for a full year. That wasn't seen as reasonable. - Competition isn't always unfair. People are allowed to use the skills they've gained in a job. You can't stop someone from earning a living just because they're now working for someone else. Read the full judgment here What this means for HR and legal teams This case is a good reminder that restraint-of-trade clauses aren't a catch-all. If you want to protect your business, you need to: - Be specific. Restrict only what's truly sensitive, like client lists, pricing models, or strategic plans. And only for people who actually had access to that information. - Keep evidence. If you're going to rely on a restraint, make sure you can show what kind of information the employee had, and why it matters. - Act quickly. If you wait too long to raise a concern, it's harder to prove the issue is urgent. - Don't overreach. Blanket bans rarely work. Tailor your clauses to the role, the risk, and the region. Ensure your contracts stand up in court It's tempting to treat restraint clauses like a safety net. But they only work if they're fair, focused, and backed by evidence. If your business is serious about protecting itself, make sure your contracts and internal processes are doing the real work. If you're unsure whether your current contracts would stand up in court – or you're facing a potential risk, it's important to seek advice to review and update your contracts. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Victorian Liberals question funding unfair dismissal claim defence while refusing to bail out John Pesutto
Several Victorian Liberals have accused the party of 'hypocrisy' after it paid lawyers to represent its administrative wing in an unfair dismissal claim, while so far declining to save former party leader John Pesutto from bankruptcy. On Monday, lawyers for Victorian Liberal MP Moira Deeming initiated bankruptcy proceedings against Pesutto after he failed to meet a deadline to pay her $2.3m in legal costs. Pesutto has less than 21 days to pay, enter into a payment agreement or face bankruptcy, which would lead to a byelection in his seat of Hawthorn. Pesutto's supporters have written to the administrative committee urging them to help him pay Deeming's legal costs. So far, no meeting has been called to discuss these requests. Any deal would require the authorisation of the 19-person committee. But sources close to Pesutto are increasingly optimistic a loan deal may be struck in coming days, partially funded by the party and its associated entities. They say more than $1m has been pledged by private donors so far, which would reduce the size of the loan. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email On the same day as the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, members of the committee discussed the engagement of law firm MinterEllison to represent them in response to the unfair dismissal claim lodged by Nadine Jones, the former director of the party's fundraising arm, Enterprise Victoria. The engagement of MinterEllison has frustrated some Liberal sources who believe the party should be doing more to help Pesutto. They argue it is 'unfair' and 'hypocritical' for the party to pay the legal costs of administration officials, but not its former parliamentary leader. Under the Victorian Liberal party's constitution, members of the administrative committee are indemnified for actions taken on behalf of the party. But the same protection is not afforded to senior MPs in the parliamentary wing, including when the opposition leader is performing their duties in the party room. 'It's hard to understand how those most opposed to party funds being used for John Pesutto's legal defence can now argue that the same funds should be used to fund two or more separate legal teams to defend themselves,' said one Liberal source. 'Those administrative members insisting on being separately represented should apply a consistent standard, or explain to members why they believe they're more deserving of party funds.' One Liberal source, who declined to be named so they could speak freely, said there was a push for the parliamentary leadership team to be indemnified as early as 2023. They said those efforts went nowhere. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion They questioned why anyone would want to take on a leadership position in the party and carry out their responsibilities, including making difficult party room decisions, without the legal protection in the current political climate. The committee includes the Victorian opposition leader, Brad Battin, and the federal shadow minister for energy and emissions, Dan Tehan. Both were contacted for comment. Some members of the administrative wing, who declined to be named, said the engagement of MinterEllison was not hypocritical. They said the matter before the Fair Work Commission was a dispute over alleged workplace misconduct, while the Pesutto matter stemmed from multiple defamatory statements. The complaint before the Fair Work Commission was submitted by Nadine Jones, who alleges she was stood down a day after a fundraising dinner featuring Gina Rinehart. Jones alleges the party's president wrongly introduced Rinehart as the sponsor of Netball Australia and that she was unfairly punished by the party for the 'embarrassing gaffe'. Liberal party sources reject any suggestion that Jones was fired for anything other than alleged misconduct.
Telegraph
21-05-2025
- Telegraph
Wetherspoon ‘not responsible for bouncers who beat up customers'
A builder who successfully sued JD Wetherspoon after being assaulted by a bouncer has been ordered to pay back around £200,000. Bernard Burger, a 41-year-old construction manager, was left with a broken and dislocated hip after a contracted doorman attacked him outside a pub in Guildford, Surrey, in August 2018. Mr Burger, who had been refused entry to the pub for allegedly being too drunk, had to undergo emergency surgery and remained in hospital for three days. He sued JD Wetherspoon and, after a trial in 2023, a judge found the chain 'vicariously responsible' for the bouncers, awarding him £71,300. The judge also ordered the pub group to pick up Mr Burger's legal costs – estimated at well over £100,000 – on top of its own costs. However, Mr Burger has now been stripped of his right to the payout from Wetherspoon after a High Court judge ruled that the firm should not have been held responsible for the actions of the bouncers, who were employed by an independent security company. The initial county court trial in central London heard the attack happened after Mr Burger had enjoyed a barbecue at his home with two friends before heading into Guildford for drinks. On arriving at the Rodboro Buildings Wetherspoon pub, they were informed that they were too intoxicated to enter. A heated discussion ensued, mainly involving bouncers and one of Mr Burger's friends, before they began to leave. But as he started to head off with his back turned, Mr Burger was attacked by Samuel Haeger, one of the bouncers, before another also waded in and restrained him. Footage played in court contained 'harrowing audio' in which Mr Burger could be heard screaming in pain as his hip was dislocated and fractured, said Recorder Tom Shepherd, the judge of the county court trial. Despite being under no threat, Mr Haeger had 'jumped towards the claimant, with his knee or leg connecting with the claimant's back so as to cause him to fall on the pavement face down', said the judge. He had then been left lying with a dislocated and fractured hip on the floor, screaming 'my leg, my leg', while being told to 'get up then' by the door staff. 'Vicariously liable' The judge described the assault as 'appalling' and 'cowardly', for Mr Burger had posed no threat and was not displaying aggression. Mr Burger told the court his injury had a serious impact on his life and he is expected to require two hip replacements during his lifetime. He sued both Wetherspoon and Risk Solutions BG Ltd, the company's contractor for door staff, obtaining a default judgment against Risk Solutions. However, after Risk Solutions was issued a winding-up order, the case proceeded against Wetherspoon, in which Mr Shepherd found the company 'vicariously liable' for the actions of the independent bouncers manning its door. The ruling has been overturned after an appeal by the pub chain, with its lawyers arguing that the county court judge was wrong to find that the contract between it and Risk Solutions was 'akin to employment'. Giving judgment at the High Court, Mr Justice Sweeting said the agreement between Wetherspoon and its contractor was that Risk Solutions would be responsible for the 'direction, management and control of their employees'. 'It was expressly agreed that [Wetherspoon] would not be responsible for the direction, instruction, management, or control of the operatives of Risk Solutions,' he said.
The Independent
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court gender case battle cost Scottish Government almost £160,000
The Scottish Government faced legal costs of almost £160,000 in its unsuccessful court battle on the definition of a woman, which ended in the Supreme Court. This came after an earlier legal challenge from the campaign group For Women Scotland cost the Government £216,000. The bills were revealed in a freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives. In April, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. The dispute centred on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Act. First Minister John Swinney has said he accepts the court's ruling and the Government is in discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission about its implications for the Scottish public sector. For Women Scotland had brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'. In the freedom of information response, the Scottish Government indicated the total bill may rise further than £157,816 as final costs have not been decided. The bulk of the sum was taken up by 'counsel fees'. Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'It will rightly stick in the throat of taxpayers that they are picking up a huge legal tab for the SNP's needless and humiliating court defeat. 'John Swinney's party threw good money after bad in a doomed attempt to defend their reckless gender policy which betrayed women. 'They dug their heels in defending the indefensible to the highest court in the land, instead of accepting that gender self-ID was a dangerous fallacy that ignored the legal rights of women and girls.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
