Chancellor reverses mini budget fiscal policies in attempt to shore up flagging UK economy

The arrival of a new government usually precipitates a “honeymoon period”, a time when the government enjoys steady waters, a bounce in the polls, and is given greater leeway over legislation. Needless to say for anyone who has been following the news, this has not been the case for Liz Truss’ government.

As the political fallout from the mini budget continues, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, has almost entirely reversed the fiscal measures announced a few weeks ago by his predecessor, Kwasi Kwarteng. With Liz Truss having become Prime Minister on the basis of the policies announced in Kwarteng’s mini budget, this failure is hugely significant for the survival of her nascent premiership.

Indeed, the only policy from the mini budget left standing is the end of the cap on bankers’ bonuses – itself a controversial measure. This has led many political commentators to claim that the new Chancellor is now effectively the de facto Prime Minister.

After we took a deep dive into the mini budget in a previous article (see here), keep reading to learn which policies Jeremy Hunt has chucked, and how it might affect you.

What fiscal policies has Hunt reversed?

Following the unprecedented reversal of a fiscal policy platform after just a few weeks of government, there is a lot of detail for us to dig into. Let’s take a look at each of the policies Hunt has scrapped as the government attempts to shore up the flagging British economy.

The cut to 19% of the basic rate of income tax from 20% has been cancelled. The government had originally said that 31 million people would save £170 a year from the cut.

The 2-year energy price guarantee – Liz Truss’ landmark policy. It has now been limited until April 2023 and Hunt suggested that there would be a new approach targeting those in the most need from April. The average annual energy bill is expected to rise to more than £4000 following the change.

The scrapping of the 45p top rate of tax for earnings over £150,000 per year has been reversed.

Corporation tax will increase to 25%. Truss had previously promised to freeze corporation tax at 19%, in contrast with previous Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s pledge to increase it to 25%. Britain would continue to have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7.

Scrapping of the alcohol duty freeze. Alcohol duty will subsequently increase in line with inflation, as measured by the retail price index which is currently at 12.3%.

Changes to off-payroll working, known as IR35 reforms have also been cancelled. The change to IR35 rules would have meant that companies would no longer be responsible for ensuring their contractors were paying the right amount of tax

VAT free shopping for international tourists has been cancelled

Freeze on alcohol duty, which would have cost £600m has been reversed

Cuts to the tax paid on shareholder’s dividends

What measures will remain?

There are some tax measures which have already begun the legislation process that will remain. These include the following:

The reverse in the rise of national insurance. The 1.25% percentage point increase will be axed from November.

The cut to stamp duty. Stamp duty has been doubled to £250,000, while the threshold for first-time buyers will rise to £425,000

The removal of the cap on bankers’ bonuses, which previously capped bonuses at twice an employee’s salary.

Will these measures help the UK economy?

Kwarteng’s tenure as Chancellor, the second shortest in British history, could hardly have been more disastrous. His replacement, Jeremy Hunt, has been chosen in an attempt by the government to reassure the financial markets and instil a sense of calm to the country. While Truss and Kwarteng are from the libertarian right of the Conservative Party, Hunt is usually identified as coming from the centre of the party. The choice of a Chancellor from a different wing of the party underlines Truss’s desperation to save her premiership.

The markets may be more assured by the fact that the government will not be forced into borrowing as much now that the majority of Truss’ policies have been scrapped, however there is still a £27.7bn black hole in the government finances according to the BBC. The cost of borrowing will also now be considerably higher for the government for the foreseeable future, which Hunt has hinted may lead to tax rises and cuts to public services.

Hunt will make a further announcement during his fiscal statement on 31^st October, where he will outline how the government intends to reduce public sector debt as a share of national income over time. However, it remains to be seen whether these fiscal measures introduced by the new Chancellor will help to turn the tide on the British economy.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Lisa’s Law employee qualifies as a solicitor!

We are very proud to announce that Lisa’s Law employee, Stephanie Chiu, has recently been admitted to the Roll of Solicitors with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and has therefore qualified as a solicitor. Stephanie joins a select group of Solicitors at the firm.

Stephanie first joined the firm as a Paralegal in November 2019 and has carried out excellent work over the last three years under the guidance of our Head of Conveyancing, Elin Lee. Stephanie has demonstrated incredible commitment to her clients and the company in her most recent role as a trainee solicitor as she studied to earn her solicitor qualification.

She has great knowledge of property law and and has conducted many successful purchases and sales of both residential and commercial properties. We are delighted that Stephanie will be furthering her career with Lisa’s Law and look forward to her continuing to deliver for her clients.

Stephanie and Elin - Lisa's Law Solicitors — Stephanie and Head of Conveyancing Elin Lee

As well as her professional credentials, Stephanie’s academic achievements include holding a degree in LLB from the University of Kent and has previously completed the Legal Practise Course at the BPP University in London. She is also fluent in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.

How does one become a solicitor?

The journey towards qualifying as a solicitor in England and Wales is a long one which requires several stages of training. This takes approximately 6 years of studying and training overall.

These stages include the following:

Any degree or equivalent level 6 qualification (or a comparable overseas qualification)
Passing both stages of the Solicitors Qualifying Examinations (SQE)
Two years’ full time (or equivalent) work experience
Passing a final character and suitability test

In addition, the level 7 trailblazer solicitor apprenticeship also offers a work-based way of qualifying.

The character and suitability test is held by the SRA. If someone does not meet the character and suitability requirements of the SRA then they will not be admitted as a Solicitor. Some of the reasons for failing this may include cautions or criminal convictions.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

How to end a commercial property lease early

No matter how long it takes, it’s inevitable that at some point either a tenant or landlord will wish to end a commercial property lease. This can come either at the end of the lease period, or indeed, earlier than this point. If you would like legal advice when it comes to ending a commercial lease, get in touch with us here.

There are a number of reasons why you may wish to end a commercial lease early. This could include outgrowing your office, or if your company is struggling financially and you are in need of a lease which better matches your requirements.

But how exactly does a commercial lease end?

There are three main ways in which a commercial lease can end. These include:

1. Exercising a break clause

2. Surrendering the lease

3. Waiting for the lease to expire

These are vastly different circumstances which affect the way in which a commercial lease ends. Let’s take a look at each of these in detail, starting with break clauses.

Break clause

Break clauses are common clauses in commercial property leases which allow commercial tenants or landlords to end a lease early without facing a penalty. They can be included in a fixed-term lease and typically come at one or more fixed points in time, such as eighteen months into a three-year lease.

The two main types of break clauses are:

1. A fixed date notice – which brings the lease to an end on a particular day

2. A rolling data notice – which allows a notice to be served on or after a particular day

We would advise you to ensure that even after notice is given, you continue to comply with the provisions of the notice from the point the notice is given and until it actually ends. The break clause will say how long the notice is. We would also advise tenants to seek advice before deploying a break clause.

Compliance with the notice period is particularly important when it comes to a fixed date notice, with the consequences for not complying with this being potentially damaging.

Break clauses typically have several conditions which must be complied with. These include:

The date
The length of notice
Who receives the notice
How the notice has to be served
Where the notice has to be served
Payment of rent and any service charge when due

It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that once notice for a break clause has been given, it cannot be withdrawn. This is the case even if both the tenant and landlord agree to waive the break notice.

Surrendering the lease

As well as a break clause, in some cases it is also possible to end your lease with your landlord’s agreement, known as surrendering the lease. Unlike with a break clause, there is no obligation on a landlord’s behalf to accept the surrender of a commercial lease. We would always advise you to consult a legal expert when considering surrendering your lease, as it may be that you have further legal obligation to your landlord which you are not aware. However, like a break clause, there are two main ways in which a lease can be surrendered.

1. Express surrender in writing

Express surrender in writing is the most common form of surrendering a lease and involves an express written declaration by the parties stating that they wish to surrender the lease. While this is the more expensive option, it does provide more certainty about the intentions of the parties involved.

It will usually include the date of the surrender as well as matters such as: whether you will have to pay the landlord to surrender the lease, liability for the cost of repairs to the property, responsibility for any claims that arise under the lease’s terms once it has come to an end. You should also be aware of whether you will have any rights against the landlord for any breaches of the lease once the lease has ended.

2. Implied surrender by conduct

This term is also referred to as surrender by operation of law. Implied surrender by conduct would involve handing the property back to the landlord, usually through the delivery of the keys. However, the landlord must accept the early surrender. It is not enough for the tenant to merely hand the keys back and vacate the property. One of the major pitfalls with implied surrender by conduct is that you don’t necessarily know on what basis the lease has been surrendered, if at all. This may result in you facing legal action further down the line from the landlord.

In both cases the landlord may ask for payment as compensation for the loss of a rental income. Once the lease has been surrendered, the tenant no longer has any liabilities to pay future rent or comply with the terms of the lease. Nevertheless, the outgoing tenant remains liable up until the date of surrender.

In most cases, we would advise commercial tenants to ensure that if they are going to surrender their lease, that they have express surrender in writing. This will help to prevent any complications further down the line such as whether the landlord may sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property, as well as any compensation for leaving the property without the landlord’s agreement.

Waiting for a lease to expire

You might think that once your lease comes to the end of a term, it will be terminated automatically. But this is not always the case. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides a couple of key provisions for ending the lease once it has expired. However, they are mutually exclusive and can’t both be served. From a tenant’s point of view, it is possible to:

1. Serve a Section 26 notice

The primary purpose of Section 26, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is for tenants to service notices on landlord to request for new tenancies. Once the notices are served, their direct effect is to terminate the tenancies immediately before the specified dates in the notices. It is clearly not the best option to choose if you wish to leave the property you are occupying. However, it is a good option to choose if you wish to end your current lease and negotiate better terms including a lower rent for your new lease.

2. Serve a Section 27 notice

Serving a Section 27 notice is by far the better of the two options if you wish to leave your current property. This is particularly useful if your landlord does not show any sign of ending the lease on its expiry. Section 27 allows you to serve either at least three months of the term to serve a notice which ends the lease on the contract’s expiry date or at least three months’ notice after the contractual expiry date.

Subletting your property

Another option, if whatever reason you are unable to terminate your lease, you may also have the option to sublet your tease. However, this is usually only possible if there is a clause in your contract which allows you to sublet. This may be the most financially beneficial in your circumstances, as it can allow you to use rent payments from your tenant that you have sub-let to in order to meet the financial obligations of your lease. You may however not be able to charge more than you pay in rent yourself.

It is also worth bearing in mind that you will take on greater responsibility in managing the premises, as you become the landlord of the incoming tenant. As the landlord, you will likely also be the main contact for any queries relating to the property.

Landlords will usually wish to approve the terms of a sublet before consenting to this new arrangement.

Our thoughts on ending a commercial property lease early

Before looking to end a commercial property lease early, it is always worth seeking legal advice to ensure that you meet the responsibilities required. There are often many costs associated with ending a commercial property lease early, and a small error can result in you facing significant penalties for failing to meet certain conditions. In some cases, especially where there is no break clause, it may be more worthwhile simply waiting for a commercial lease to expire. This is especially true where you are on a shorter lease.

Nevertheless, our conveyancing experts in commercial property team will be able to offer you our specialist advice at highly competitive rates. We have experience in helping both commercial tenants and landlords to terminate commercial leases before their expiration date. Get in touch with us by clicking here.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Does size really matter? First-tier Tribunal decides ‘Mega Marshmallows’ should not be subject to standard VAT rate

It appears that when it comes to confectionary, size certainly does matter. In a recent case, Innovative Bites Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, the First-tier Tribunal decided that a food product called “Mega Marshmallows” was not a confectionary and therefore is VAT zero rated. This is not the case with standard marshmallows, which are classed as confectionary and therefore subject to the standard 20% VAT rate.

Let’s take a look at the case details.

Case background

HMRC decided that Innovative Bites Ltd’s product should be classed as confectionary, and should therefore be standard rated. Assessments were issued to the appellant in August 2019, which covered supplies of the product between June 2015 and June 2019. These assessments totalled £472,928.

So, what was the case for the Mega Marshmallow not being deemed a confectionary?

You may have heard of a “s’more”. It’s a traditional American campfire snack which consists of roasted marshmallows and chocolate that is layered between biscuits (graham crackers).

The appellant claimed that the marshmallow would not usually be intended to be eaten by itself. Instead, the argument made is that it is essentially an ingredient which is roasted. It is therefore not intended to be eaten before being roasted and the argument is that it should not be classed as a confectionary.

Confectionary, not including cakes or biscuits, are generally standard rated. While there is no set definition of confectionary, the legal framework from Note 5 Group 1 does provide the following explanation: “’confectionery’ includes chocolates, sweets and biscuits; drained, glacé or crystallised fruits; and any item of sweetened prepared food which is normally eaten with the fingers.”

The product itself has several references to the fact that it is intended to be used for the purposes of making s’mores. This includes stating on the packaging that they are “perfect for roasting, s’mores or just snacking”. The reverse of the packaging also provides “instructions for use” which provide instructions for roasting marshmallows over a campfire. It also provides instructions for how to make a s’more.

The seasonality of Innovative Bites’ marshmallow sales was also shown as evidence that the Mega Marshmallows are more frequently purchased to be roasted. While sales of all marshmallows tend to be higher in the months between May and October, sales of the Mega Marshmallows show a higher percentage than other mallow products, with 65% compared to 56%. The implication is therefore that the Mega Marshmallows produced by Innovative Bites are more likely to be roasted over a flame.

Why could it be deemed confectionary?

HMRC asked the First-tier Tribunal to consider the following factors which indicate the product would tend to be deemed confectionary.

The Product can be eaten as a snack from the bag, as with regular marshmallows.
The packaging identifies it as a product which may be consumed as a snack.
It is generally eaten with the fingers, either without roasting or once roasted and allowed to cool down.
The Product may be eaten as a snack “on the go”.
There is a trend for outsized chocolate and sweets, of which the Product might be viewed as an example.
Regular marshmallows, which are properly viewed as confectionery, can be roasted and enjoyed in the same way as the Product. They would have been enjoyed as such before the introduction of large marshmallows.
The Product is found on the appellant’s website in the category of “sweets, candy and chocolate”.

Why should it not be deemed confectionary?

Nevertheless, there are also a number of factors which suggest it is not typically deemed confectionary. Some of the reasons Innovative Bites put forward include:

The Product is not normally eaten with the fingers in circumstances where it is roasted on a stick. Consumers would not normally use an implement to eat confectionery, in this case the stick on which the Product is roasted.
Items which are intended to be subject to a further cooking process would not be expected to fall within the term confectionery.
The Product is marketed as being intended for roasting. Hence it does not appear on the confectionery shelves of supermarkets but is placed in the world foods section and, more importantly, in the barbecue section during the summer months when most sales are made.
The packaging of the Product holds it out as primarily intended to be roasted
The fact that it is a seasonal product which is enjoyed more in the summer months than regular marshmallow products demonstrates that customers do tend to roast the Product.
Customers wishing to purchase a marshmallow as a sweet snack would tend to choose a regular marshmallow.
The depiction of a cartoon chef character with a reference to “Baking Buddy” marks it as an ingredient rather than an item of confectionery.

First-tier Tribunal judgement

The Tribunal had to decide whether the term confectionary includes items which is intended to be subjected to a cooking process before being eaten, and to a certain extent used as an ingredient in making another product.

The tribunal decided that the ‘Mega Marshmallows’ should not be categorised as confectionary and should therefore not be subjected to the standard rate of VAT.

While the tribunal considered all of the arguments, it decided that its packaging, marketing, size, and position in the barbecue section in supermarket aisles means that it cannot be described as confectionary according to the criteria outlined earlier.

The First-tier Tribunal therefore gave the appellant permission for the right to appeal.

Our thoughts

This case is a clear example of the nuances of tax law. While on first glance it might seem as though the mega marshmallow would be described as confectionary, the conclusion which the First-tier Tribunal came to is one which seems most agreeable for the reasons explained earlier. Innovative Bites will clearly be glad that the First-tier Tribunal came to this conclusion, and will now have the opportunity to appeal against the large tax bill which HMRC had given them.

It is worth bearing in mind whether your business needs to be registered for VAT, as all businesses in the UK with an annual income of over £83,000 are subject to paying VAT. Businesses are required to keep adequate records in order to accurately record VAT and must also submit online returns and pay any VAT which is owed electronically.

Reasonable tax appeals and tax refunds are encouraged, and the professional commercial law team at Lisa Law Firm can provide you with consultation and services should you require it.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

How will Priti Patel’s time as Home Secretary be remembered? And what can we expect from her successor, Suella Braverman?

After over three years in the role, former Home Secretary Priti Patel has been replaced. Her successor, Suella Braverman, represents something of a continuity figure in the role. Like Patel, she is both firmly on the right of the Conservative Party and a Brexiteer.

Formerly the Attorney General, some of Braverman’s most well-known views include withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights as well as supporting the sending of cross-channel migrants to Rwanda. She ran for the leadership in the most recent Conservative leadership contest and was eliminated in the second round with 27 votes.

But what can we expect from Braverman as Home Secretary and how will the Patel era be remembered?

Priti Patel – did she take back control?

Priti Patel’s time as Home Secretary under Boris Johnson’s premiership is likely be remembered as a tumultuous period. In her resignation letter, the former Home Secretary outlined some of her main achievements in the role as ending free movement and “taking back control of our borders” – a clear nod to Brexit and the reform to immigration.

But is it right to say that Britain has taken back control of its borders?

While EU immigration has plummeted, non-EU immigration to the UK reached its highest level ever recorded in December 2019. Furthermore, the unprecedented rise in small boat crossings over the past few years occurred almost exclusively under Patel.

When Patel was appointed in July 2019, the beginning of the Johnson premiership, the number of people crossing the English Channel in a small boat was fairly negligible, barely reaching 500. By the end of her time as Home Secretary in August 2022, the monthly total was 8,700 – the highest month total on record.

In order to deal with this, the government signed what Patel describes as a “world-first Migration and Economic Development Partnership” with Rwanda. However, enforced and voluntary returns are now at an near all-time low, decreasing from 45,000 in 2010 to 10,000 in 2021.

Other significant immigration policies and events which occurred with Patel as Home Secretary included the exit of Britain from the European Union in January 2020. This marked the advent of the points-based immigration system and the end of free movement with Europe, a substantial shift in immigration policy. This means that there is a blanket approach towards immigration regardless of where immigrants come from. To work in the UK, applicants require 70 points.

The Nationality and Border Act was another significant piece of legislation introduced by Patel. Under it a two-tier asylum system was introduced, making it so that those who make asylum claims after travelling through a third country such as France are inadmissible, with some exceptions.

Another legacy of Patel’s time as Home Secretary is the asylum backlog, which under her stewardship has gone from 40,000 to over 120,000. At the same time, the success rate for initial asylum applications actually rose to a new high of 76%, increasing from 25% in 2010. While Patel frequently railed against those crossing the Channel in small boats, the reality is that the vast majority of them were genuine refugees.

Finally, the Windrush compensation scheme which arose out of the Windrush scandal in 2018 has been largely unsuccessful. The Wendy Williams report published in March 2022 found that the Home Office had failed to take a more compassionate approach and had broken pledges to transform its culture.

Suella Braverman – a more extreme Home Secretary than Patel?

Despite Truss’s government being expected to take a more relaxed approach towards legal immigration, the same cannot be said for those who arrive as asylum seekers or illegally.

In recent days, the new Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been outspoken in interviews by saying that Britain has too many low-skilled migrants and international students who bring over dependants. This is despite the fact that under the new points-based immigration system, there is no route for low-skilled workers. It also appears to contradict recent briefings from the government that immigration rules will be loosened under the new Prime Minister Liz Truss as part of her ‘growth plan’, which recently u-turned on its cut to the top rate of tax.

In her speech at the Conservative Party conference, Braverman set out plans to bar those crossing the English Channel from claiming asylum in the UK. This would be a clear breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Braverman is also strongly supportive of the Rwanda plan introduced by Priti Patel, stating “I would love to have a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda, that’s my dream, it’s my obsession.” Judges are expected to rule on both High Court challenges to the Rwanda policy later this month.

Braverman was a fierce proponent of the British Bill of Rights proposed by Dominic Raab which would have given the UK Supreme Court legal supremacy over the European Court of Human Rights. One of its aims was to make it easier for the UK to deport immigrants and asylum seekers without facing legal challenges from European courts. Braverman has mentioned in recent days how she wishes to bring down immigration levels to “tens of thousands”, with the figure currently standing at 239,000.

However, the Truss government have recently ridden back on the idea of the British Bill of Rights, and it seems unlikely to go ahead at this moment in time. You can find out more about the British Bill of Rights here.

Despite resistance from the new Home Secretary, Prime Minister Liz Truss has ordered a review of the shortage occupation list, which would allow certain industries to bring in staff from overseas. This is in response to the UK’s labour shortage, which has followed the exit of the UK from the European Union.

Our thoughts

The UK’s hard-line approach towards immigration is likely to get tougher under Braverman, whose rhetoric in recent days has been harsh towards refugees, modern slavery victims, and low-skilled workers. With the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary seemingly at odds over immigration levels, it remains to be seen who will win this particular battle.

As usual, Lisa’s Law will bring you all the big news with regards to immigration. The biggest policy announcement so far from Braverman has been that she plans to go further than Patel by bringing in legislation banning those who enter the UK illegally from claiming asylum. It remains to be seen what legislation will be introduced over the next few months.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Is supporting a football team grounds for unfair dismissal under the Equality Act 2010?

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it’s much more serious than that”. This famous quote by Bill Shankly is certainly a sentiment the claimant in this case, a life-long Rangers fan, would identify with.

Like Shankly, the claimant in this case was a fellow Scot. But unlike Shankly, who breached the sectarian divide in Glasgow between Celtic and Rangers, Mr McClung’s case rested on his fanaticism for Rangers Football Club and its loyalty to the United Kingdom and the Queen.

It is due to his support Rangers Football Club that Mr McClung believes he was denied work by his Celtic supporting manager while working as a subcontractor. He subsequently brought claims forward for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Let’s take a deep dive into this case and see what conclusion the court came to.

Case background

To echo the words of Shankly, Mr McClung argued that supporting Rangers was a way of life and that it was as important for him as it was for religious people to go to church.

The claimant described Rangers fans as caring passionately about the Queen and having loyalty to Northern Ireland and the UK at large. Rangers and Celtic represent the sectarian divide of Protestants and Catholics which can be found in Scotland’s most populous city, Glasgow.

The employment tribunal decision in this case concerns the question of whether Mr McClung’s support of Rangers could qualify as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act 2010

Section 10 of the Equality Act refers to the following:

(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.

(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—

(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.

The 2010 Act does not actually define what a “philosophical belief” is, however the Explanatory notes to the Equality Act sets out that for a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act:

it must be genuinely held;
it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state

of information available;

it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and

behaviour;

it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and

importance and

it must be worthy or respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with

human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”

The claimant put forward the argument that due to his strong Unionist views, allegiance to the Queen, and protestant views, views he claims the “vast majority of Rangers fans” hold, his support of Rangers qualified as a philosophical belief.

Judgement

This was dismissed by the judge for a number of reasons, who considered the 5 components of the Grainger criteria during his dismissal. While they conceded that the claimant’s support of Rangers was genuine, for the second criteria they drew comparisons between supporting Rangers and being an active member or support for a political party, which had been dismissed in previous cases as constituting a philosophical belief.

The word ‘support’ contrasts with the word ‘belief’, which the judge defined as “an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof” or “an acceptance one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion”. It is for this reason that the judge found a comparison between support for a football club and support for a political party.

The third aspect of the Grainger criteria concerns whether the belief is a “weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”. In this aspect, the claimant made reference to the Casamitjana case where it was decided that ethical veganism met all five of the Grainger criteria. Ethical veganism was therefore found to be eligible for protection under the Equality Act.

However, in this case it was found that ethnical veganism was a belief rooted in morality and prevalent in all aspects of the employee’s life. In contrast, the judge found that support for a football club was akin to a lifestyle choice rather than relating to a “substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”. The judge therefore found that the claimant did not satisfy the third criterion.

The penultimate criterion was that the belief must attain a “certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.” While the claimant’s support of Rangers was a serious and important matter to him, and he displayed support for the Union and loyalty to the Queen, the judge found that these factors were not prerequisites. Not all fans would support these factors. The judge decided that beyond a desire for the team to do well/win, support for Rangers has no larger consequences for humanity as a whole. The claimant therefore did not satisfy the fourth criterion.

Finally, the belief must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with fundamental rights of others.” While the judge found the claimant’s support for Rangers was worthy of respect, the judge was not persuaded that it invoked the same respect in a democratic society as ethical veganism or the governance of a country.” He therefore did not satisfy the fifth criterion either.

With four out of the five criterions dismissed by the judge, the conclusion was that supporting a football team was clearly not a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. As a result, this cannot be relied upon when it comes to claiming discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Our thoughts

The judgement which the judge came to through the usage of the Grainger criteria was well thought out and applicable in this case. For something to be a protected characteristic, there must be significant evidence that it constitutes a philosophical belief under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

Ironically, support of a club like Rangers probably comes closest to this, owing to its significant links to the sectarian divide in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is possible that another judge may therefore have been more sympathetic to the view put forward by the claimant in this case. However, for now at least, support for a football club is not a protected philosophical belief in the United Kingdom.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Naturalisation: Home Office updates good character requirement in line with the Nationality and Borders Act 2022

A person can apply for naturalisation and become a British citizen if they satisfy all the requirements. Some of these requirements include suitability requirements, eligibility requirements and passing the Life in the UK test.

If you are looking to apply for British citizenship, new changes to the good character requirement guidance mean that you can now apply even if you have previously overstayed. Contact us now, Mahfuz and his team will be more than happy to help!

Under the British Nationality Act 1981, it is mandatory that all applicants must satisfy the good character requirement.

Factors that usually breach the good character requirement would be if you have previously entered the UK illegally, overstayed your visa, or breached the Immigration Rules. The Home Office will look at any breaches dating as far back as 10 years prior to the citizenship application. As a result, in the past this requirement has prevented a number of people from being able to obtain British Citizenship.

This meant that lots of people who had permanent residence in the UK often found it difficult to apply for British Citizenship. In those 10 years if person has overstayed, entered illegally etc they would fail their British citizenship application.

Good character guidance updated for Nationality and Borders Act 2022

However, the Home Office has updated its guidance on good character requirement to adhere to the changes made in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

The changes now state that where a person has committed previous breaches of the Immigration Rules such us illegal entry, overstaying and absconding, these breaches may be disregarded in consideration of an applicant’s good character provided that all the following apply:

The person is applying for naturalisation as a British Citizen or registration after 28^th June 2022
That person holds Indefinite Leave to Remain
There are no concerns regarding the persons character which have arisen following the grant of Indefinite Leave to Remain

Accordingly, from 28^th June 2022, all with indefinite leave to remain (ILR) will be able to make an application for naturalisation without concern of their previous breaches of immigration rules.

Our comments

We welcome this much needed change to the immigration rules. We believe it was very harsh that periods of overstaying that happened for a very short period, many years ago, has prevented people in obtaining British citizenship. There are those who entered the UK illegally to flee danger and were subsequently granted refugee status who have also been unable to obtain citizenship.

With the UK government seeking to prioritise growth during a time of economic turbulence, they are reportedly planning to loosen immigration controls and increase the numbers of workers entering the UK. The latest relaxation of the good character guidance seemingly forms part of their plan to ensure that the UK is able to retain immigrants.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Rachel

We are delighted to welcome Rachel Fung, who joins Lisa’s Law as a legal assistant. Rachel initially joined Lisa’s Law as an intern, and has subsequently earned a permanent position due to her hard work and expertise.

Rachel is a recent LLB graduate from Durham University and a current full time Legal Practise Course student. She speaks fluent English, Cantonese, Mandarin (as well as AS level French!)

In her spare time, her favourite hobby is to explore new fun spots and exotic restaurants in London. In the long term, she aspires to become a versatile and well-rounded solicitor.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng announces ‘mini budget’ as UK battles the cost-of-living crisis

With the new Conservative government still in its infancy, New Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng was expected to put forward a ‘mini budget’ today. However, the set of measures announced turned out to be anything but mini. This budget saw the announcement of the biggest set of tax-cutting measures since 1972 in an attempt to deal with a stagnating economy and numerous crises. The government claim that this is the only way to boost economic growth. This budget represents a sharp turn from the last Conservative government by switching to a low-tax economy funded by high levels of government borrowing.

Critics, including the Labour Party and many other leading economists, have questioned the effectiveness of the plans, describing them as an example of ‘trickle-down economics’ and a return to the Thatcherism of the 1980s.

Let’s digest some of the key announcements and take a look at what they will mean for businesses and the public at large.

Tax

Tax cuts formed the vast majority of the announcements made in today’s budget. Under the previous government, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that the basic rate of income tax would be cut by 1p to 19p from 2024. This has now been brought forward to April 2023.

Perhaps the most surprising measure for a government to announce amidst a cost-of-living crisis was that the additional tax rate of 45p for those earning over £150,000 would be scrapped from April next year. According to the Treasury, this will save the 600,000 highest earning people in the country an average of £10,000 a year in tax.

The planned rise of corporation from 19% to 25% has also been scrapped, a measure which will ensure the UK continues to have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7.

Meanwhile, the planned 1.25% rise to National Insurance will also be reversed from 6^th November. This will save those earning £20,000 a total of £93 per annum, while those earning £100,000 per annum will save £1,093 per annum.

While these measures will all disproportionately benefit the wealthiest people in society, the government claim that this part of its plan is to boost growth and prosperity in the UK. Whether this example of ‘trickle-down economics’ will in fact have the desired effect remains to be seen.

Property

There were also a number of changes to the property sector announced, which will be of interest to conveyancers and property buyers alike.

Changes to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) are at the heart of the announcements, with the level at which house-buyers begin to pay stamp duty doubling from £125,000 to £250,000. This will save those who buy a house worth £250,000 a total of £2,500.

Meanwhile, first-time buyers will pay no stamp duty on homes worth £450,000, which is an increase from the previous threshold of £300,000. This will allow them to save £6,250.

Some within the conveyancing sector still recovering from the last cut to SDLT fear that this latest cut to SDLT will overheat the housing market and increase prices and mortgages.

Energy bills

Household bills will be cut by an average of £1,000 this year due to the energy price guarantee of £2,500, which will last for a two year period. This plan applies to those in England, Wales and Scotland.

Meanwhile, the six month £400 fuel bill discount will continue to go ahead alongside the newly announced additional support.

Businesses will also rejoice at the news that they will receive government support, with wholesale energy prices to be capped from 1^st October at 21.1p per kilowatt hours for electricity and 7.5p per kilowatt hour for gas.

This support package will cost approximately £60bn for the six months from October, which will be paid for by increased borrowing.

Other measures

The government made a number of further announcements in its budget today, some more controversial than others.

One that grabbed a lot of headlines was the plan to axe the cap on bankers’ bonuses, which was introduced by the European Union in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2014. This forms part of a deregulation drive in the City of London in an attempt to make the City more competitive than it has been in recent years, to the benefit of cities like Paris, Frankfurt and New York.

With industrial action affecting several sectors over the summer, the government will introduce legislation requiring unions to put offers to their members during pay talks, meaning that any pay offers for employers would have to be put to a vote. Meanwhile, transport companies will also be forced to provide a minimum level of service during industrial action – something not welcomed by trade unions.

Our thoughts

The scale of the measures announced by the Chancellor today far outweighs any prior expectations. The UK is currently facing a huge cost of living crisis, driven by, but not solely due to the war in Ukraine, the after-effects of Covid, and Brexit. While the government claim that these measures will help to drive much-needed growth, they failed to provide an OBR forecast, something which usually accompanies a government budget announcement. The value of the pound also plummeted following the announcements, suggesting the markets don’t have much confidence in the measures proposed.

Whether this redistribution of wealth towards the wealthier people in society will help to boost the economy, it’s hard to argue with the fact that the optics of such measures during a cost-of-living crisis may not necessarily be as positive for the government as they would like. Nevertheless, the recently announced support for businesses and households alike to help with the huge increase in energy bills will be much welcomed across the UK.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Success in obtaining unreasonable costs following appeal against the Home Office

At Lisa’s Law, we deal with all manner of cases. We often like to highlight these if we feel that they might be of particular interest to those who wish to learn more about the legal sector or those who would like to see examples of the kind of work we take on board.

Today, our Immigration General Supervisor Mahfuz Ahmed takes us through a recent immigration case handled by Lisa’s Law. In this case, we succeeded in obtaining an unreasonable costs order against the Secretary of State for the Home Department following a successful appeal.

Keep reading to learn more about this appeal.

The case

We acted for our client in their appeal, who had been in the UK for 20 years. The Home Office refused his initial application, which we appealed. During the appeal, the Judge accepted that the client had been in the UK for 20 years continuously and allowed the appeal.

We did not stop at the allowance of the appeal. We believed that the Home Office’s refusal of our client’s case was completely unreasonable and a competent decision at the application stage would have saved much time and money which has now been spent on appeal.

Subsequently, we made an application for unreasonable costs order against the Secretary of State. Such orders to be granted are very rare however we were confident that refusing our client’s application was entirely unreasonable conduct. The Court accepted our application and agreed with our view. Finally, the Court ordered that the Home Office pay for our client’s legal fees incurred in representing our client in the appeal.

Our client was extremely pleased with the result, as not only did he obtain leave, but he was also reimbursed for the legal fees that he had incurred.

Conclusion

Although unreasonable costs orders are very rarely granted against the Home Office, if a case has been prepared well from the outset, we believe such an application should be made by all. Should such applications be made, this may ensure that the Home Office apply consistency in the level of due consideration when making decisions on immigration applications.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio