Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Efforts are continuing to contain the oil spill taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. Existing US law makes the parties responsible for an oil spill liable for clean-up costs, but limits to $75 million their exposure to other liabilities. But there is a move in Congress to raise that limit to $10 billion with the intention of applying this law retrospectively to BP.
Laws with retrospective effect are a classic example of a human rights abuse. Equally in a business situation, those seeking and providing insurance should be able to ascertain the costs risk arising. But in some cases the US Supreme Court has upheld such laws as constitutional. One rationale is that such laws are “regulatory” in nature rather than “punitive”. A similar trend for regulatory enforcement has developed in the UK recently with use of “non-criminal” sanctions, such as civil enforcement orders and penalties, which allow for the burden of proof to be lowered due to the “civil” nature of the enforcement.
So does the US attempt to pass retrospective legislation amount to an abuse of Human Rights – or good economic sense?
Nazareth Care Charitable Trust which operates a care home in Bonnyrigg, Scotland, recently received a fine after a resident at one of its care homes suffered a fatal injury after falling down a flight of stairs.
View blog
Draft legislation has already been produced to replicate the 2017 IR35 changes within the public sector and extend these to medium and large private sector organisations, with the final legislation previously expected this month.
The University of Edinburgh has been fined £10,000 for allowing animal research workers to be exposed to laboratory animal allergens “LAA”.
Following a consultation last year on a draft form, the Department for Education (DfE) has now published extensive guidance for schools and colleges in relation to security.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up