Hirer meaning

Purpose If you need to acquire assets—particularly high-cost capital equipment—but lack the cash to pay outright, leasing or hire purchase (HP) can provide an alternative to a loan. These options allow payment by instalments over time so future business revenues can fund those instalments. Cars and commercial vehicles Agricultural machinery Plant and machinery Computers Office equipment such as printers/copiers Hotel/restaurant equipment Review checklist—key risks Cost Under a lease or HP arrangement, the lessee/hirer pays a deposit and a series of instalments across an agreed period (usually 24 to 60 months or more). With HP only, there is an option—without any obligation—to buy the asset(s) at the end of the hire term. CHECK: the total payable under the lease or HP agreement does not exceed the interest otherwise payable on a loan for the same period...

Checklist This Checklist sets out the key considerations when judging if a professional negligence claim can properly be advanced in relation to the scope of the duty, causation and remoteness. It is aimed at deciding whether the losses alleged fall within the professional’s duty by applying the analysis model set out by the Supreme Court in its 2021 rulings in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton and Khan v Meadows. For comprehensive guidance on causation and remoteness in this field, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. Note: in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s use of a six-point checklist when assessing whether a claimant car-hirer could recover sums payable to the hire company for loss of use after third-party negligence damaged the vehicle—the issue in that case did not concern the scope of duty, so a six-point checklist for deciding if recoverable losses fell within the scope of duty had no application (at para [73])...

Breach of a contract entered into before 1 October 2015 Relevant legislation Before 1 October 2015 (business or consumer): Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979); Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA 1982). Who can bring a claim Contracting parties (buyer/consumer). Third parties expressly identified in the contract (Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999). Potential defendants Contract counterparty (retailer). Breach of a contract entered into on or after 1 October 2015 Relevant legislation Consumer contracts from 1 October 2015: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). Who can bring a claim Contracting parties (buyer/consumer). Third parties expressly identified in the contract (Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999). Potential defendants Contract counterparty (retailer). Negligence Relevant legislation Not applicable. Who can bring...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—15 February 2024 In this issue: Road traffic accidents Clinical negligence Costs Court and the legal profession Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information New Q&As Road traffic accidents Pure economic loss and remoteness In Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court held that a bailee’s possessory interest in goods is sufficient to found a claim against a third party whose negligence damages those goods. The appeal succeeded: a car-hirer was entitled to sue the negligent third party in tort to recover the contractual daily loss-of-use sum owed to the vehicle owner (the bailor, hire company) arising from the damage. The court also issued succinct guidance on core principles governing negligence claims for harm to tangible property, and on the limits of remoteness. Further, the Supreme Court confirmed that once a claimant has shown that...

Donkor-Baah v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust and others [2024] EAT 23 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is noteworthy as it clarifies the reach of the right to equal treatment in regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR 2010). This judgment is of interest because it addresses how far that entitlement extends. It explains that, once the right arises, parity under reg 5 on terms and conditions concerning pay and working time, equivalent to a direct hire, exists only for the span of an assignment, when the agency worker is actually engaged by the hirer. The right does not extend to a wider guarantee against being treated less favourably than the hirer’s employees or workers in the periods between assignments. In light of this, practitioners should pay very close attention to what amounts to an agency worker’s ‘assignment’. The point is particularly significant because, on the facts here, an ‘assignment’ was confined to a single shift carried out by the claimant,...

PD and MJ Ltd (In Members' Voluntary Liquidation) v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 38 (TC) HMRC issued assessments on Mr Thompson’s PSC totalling £294,306.68 for income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) across four tax years, 2013–14 to 2017–18, asserting that the intermediaries legislation applied to his work on Soccer Saturday. At the time, the question of employment status was determined by the worker’s own PSC under ITEPA 2003, Pt 2, Ch 8, rather than by the hirer; under today’s framework, that decision would ordinarily rest with the hirer (ITEPA 2003, Pt 2, Ch 10, ss 61K-61X), save for small private sector organisations. Consequently, any additional sums arising from a change in employment status fell on the PSC. By comparison, under the current regime, primary liability would have sat with the hirer, subject to any offset that might be available under the new rules in Finance Bill 2024, Clause 17. The FTT applied the familiar three stage methodology described in HMRC v Atholl House Productions...

This Practice Note examines the statutory right to paid time off for antenatal care for pregnant employees and agency workers This Practice Note considers the statutory entitlement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). An employer—or, where relevant, a temporary work agency or hirer—must not unreasonably prevent a pregnant employee, or a pregnant agency worker, from taking time away from work to attend antenatal appointments for antenatal care. Such time off for antenatal appointments must be paid. There is also a distinct entitlement to unpaid time off during working hours to accompany a pregnant woman to an antenatal care appointment: see The right to time off to accompany to antenatal appointments, below. Comparable provisions apply for time off to attend adoption appointments—see Practice Note: Time off work for adoption appointments. Certain categories are excluded from these rights: share fishermen and fisherwomen and certain other mariners, as well as those employed in ‘police service’ (as defined). For a sample policy addressing time off for antenatal appointments, see...

Breach of a contract entered into before 1 October 2015 Relevant legislation For agreements made prior to 1 October 2015, whether business or consumer: Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Who can bring a claim Contracting parties (buyer/consumer), plus third parties expressly identified under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Potential defendants The contracting retailer. Breach of a contract entered into on or after 1 October 2015 Relevant legislation For consumer contracts from 1 October 2015: the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Who can bring a claim Parties to the contract (purchaser/consumer), and named third parties under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Potential defendants The retailer party to the contract. Negligence Relevant legislation Not applicable. ...

STOP PRESS: Following confirmation that the Department for Business and Trade has ‘no plans’ to commence the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 (WPTCA 2023) in Autumn 2024 as anticipated, clause 5 of the Employment Rights Bill, introduced on 10 October 2024, would repeal the WPTCA 2023. Clause 7 of the Bill updates Part 8A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, introducing a requirement of ‘reasonableness’ when an employer refuses a flexible working request on one or more statutory grounds, and obliging the employer to explain in its notification to the employee why it considers it reasonable to turn down the application on the cited ground(s). For more information, see: Law360: Labour drops predictable hours legislation to pursue stronger right The Employment Rights Bill and Employment Rights Bill 2024 - views from the sector LNB News 10/10/2024 85 ARCHIVED: The Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 (WPTCA 2023), which received Royal Assent on 18 September 2023 inserts new...

Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: Engaged by the First Respondent, a temporary work agency, the Claimant is an agency worker. He began assignment with the Second Respondent on [ insert date ]...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] 1 The Claimant works as an agency worker for the First Respondent, a temporary employment agency. She started assignment with the Second Respondent on [ insert date ]...

[ Insert in para 6.1 of claim form ET3: ] It is accepted that the Claimant works as a [ legal secretary ], and it is further accepted that the First Respondent is a temporary employment agency. The Second Respondent has no knowledge of the nature or terms of any contract between the Claimant and the First Respondent and therefore makes no admission on that matter. It is also accepted that an arrangement existed between the First and Second Respondents for the Claimant to deliver legal secretarial services to the Second Respondent. It is accepted that the Claimant began working on [ insert date ]. She attended an induction on [ insert date ], during which she was informed that she would require a staff card to access certain of the Second Respondent's facilities, including the staff canteen. She was also informed that, to obtain a staff card, she must provide the HR department with a passport-sized photograph of herself...