Redundancies and Voluntary Redundancy

Making redundancies can be an effective method of long-term cost cutting, although the short terms costs to the organisation can be high. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has estimated that the cost of a single employee's redundancy is more than £16,000.

In addition to a statutory redundancy payment, employees may have an express or implied contractual right to an enhanced contractual redundancy payment. Employers should therefore make sure they know exactly what their liability under such agreements amounts to, before commencing the redundancy process. They should also bear in mind the cost of notice periods, if they would prefer the employee not to work their notice.

Where 20 or more employees are being made redundant over a period of 90 days or less, employers have a duty to inform and consult appropriate employee representatives. It is vital that employers considering large scale redundancies take note of this, as tribunals may order a protective award, which can be up to 90 days' pay in respect of each employee, where there has been a breach of the information and consultation duty.

Employers should also be aware that employees might be able to challenge the termination of their employment as an unfair dismissal. In order to avoid a finding that a redundancy dismissal is unfair, employers should take care to identify an appropriate pool for selection, consult with individuals in the pool, apply o]]>17/08/2012http://www.prettys.co.uk/default.asp?p=13&l=1&a=233Introduction To be known as the ‘Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park’, the redevelopment of the Olympic park is set to become one of the biggest construction projects in Europe as a £300m constructionIntroduction

To be known as the ‘Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park’, the redevelopment of the Olympic park is set to become one of the biggest construction projects in Europe as a £300m construction project is set to begin after the completion of the Paralympic Games.

The London Legacy Development Corporation (a Mayoral Development Corporation) has been created to oversee the development of the Olympic Park. It will also take over the planning powers of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and the Olympic Delivery Authority.

The new park will open in phases, with the first phase set for completion on 27 July 2013 (exactly one year on from the closing ceremony) and other phases not projected to be complete until 2030.

Sporting Venues

The future of the Olympic Stadium remains uncertain. The 80,000-capacity stadium will be reduced after the Games to a 60,000 venue, which will retain a running track.

Football clubs West Ham and Leyton Orient are bidding to be tenants, as is the UCFB College of Football Business and plans for a F1 grand prix circuit have also been put forward.

The LLDC says it is possible more than one bidder could be successful, with a decision expected in the autumn.

The future of the other permanent venues has already been decided:

• The Aquatics Centre – to be operated by Greenwich Leisure Limited for 10 years from 2013 for local community, clubs, schools and elite swimmers. Two temporary wings will be removed and the pools have moveable booms to create different pool sizes and depths.
• Multi Use Arena – also to be operated by Greenwich Leisure Limited for 10 years from 2013 for local community, clubs, schools and elite athletes.
• Velodrome – this will form part of Lee Valley Velopark and will include BMX tracks, mountain bike tracks and a new road cycle circuit;
• Eton Manor – this is being turned into a hockey centre]]>17/08/2012http://www.prettys.co.uk/default.asp?p=13&l=1&a=230In the recent case of Higginson Securities Developments Ltd & another v Hodson, the TCC has emphasised that there is a degree of flexibility contained within the Pre-Action Protocol forIn the recent case of Higginson Securities Developments Ltd & another v Hodson, the TCC has emphasised that there is a degree of flexibility contained within the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes, particularly with regard to pre-action meetings.

  Paragraph 2 of the Protocol sets out the general aims of pre-action conduct and includes that, before court proceedings are commenced, the parties should have met formally with a view to defining and agreeing the issues between them; and exploring possible resolution of the dispute.  Elsewhere the Protocol suggests that a meeting should “normally” occur.

  However, the aims and processes contained within the Protocol are expressly subject to the “overriding objective” in the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), of dealing with cases justly.  The CPR sets out factors to be considered in dealing with cases justly, and these include saving expense; and dealing with matters in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved in the dispute.

  In the Higginson case, the dispute centred on the construction of a complex containing a church and nine flats.  The defendant architect was being sued by the claimant developer for a sum in the region of £70,000.  The sum consisted partly of an allegation of professional negligence; and partly of an allegation of overpaid fees.

  A letter of claim and letter of response had been exchanged in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol, albeit that the process of exchanging correspondence had taken almost 9 months.  In its letter of response the defendant’s solicitors had concluded with a strong denial of liability and a promise to vigorously defend proceedings if they were issued.  No suggestion of a pre-action protocol meeting was made.

  Proceedings were issued by the claimant two months later.  When the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors asking]]>09/08/2012