Zero hour contracts normally refer to contracts of employment, which do not guarantee the employee a minimum amount of work.   They are used by employers because they minimise overheads, i.e. during quieter periods the employee can be offered little or no work and vice versa.
Zero hour contracts have been condemned by unions and caused political controversy due to the perceived imbalance they create between employee and employer.  They were a significant issue at the 2015 General Election and politicians have been pledging to address them since at least 1997.

The common perception of these contracts is that the employee is effectively at the employer’s beck and call, forced to work when it suits the employer’s commercial interests without having the stability of a fixed salary.
This perception, at least in terms of the party’s legal obligations, is not entirely accurate as employees are not usually required to accept any work offered. 

On 26^th May 2015, new regulations came into force (The Exclusivity Terms In Zero Hour Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015).  These regulations prohibit exclusivity clauses in zero hour contracts, namely clauses that prevent an employee working for other employers.
The regulations state that it will automatically be unfair, if an employee is dismissed for breaching an exclusivity clause.   There will be no qualifying period of continuous employment in order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal in such circumstances.
Additionally the regulations make it unlawful to subject an employee to detriment for breaching such a clause, for instance reducing the usual hours that they are offered.

In light of these recent regulations, it is unlikely that the UK will go the way of New Zealand and abolish zero hour contracts altogether, any time soon.

Unfortunately it may be impossible for the aims of the regulations to be achieved.   For instance some employers may not use exclusivity clauses in contracts but will develop a practice of discriminating against employees who work for other employers.  Similarly proving detriment will be difficult as it will involve a detailed analysis of the employer’s business practices.

Most zero hour contract employees are low paid workers and legal costs are not normally recoverable in the Employment Tribunal.  Therefore it is unlikely that solicitors will be prepared to accept instructions for breaches of the new regulations.

Sean Sexton, partner in our crime team has welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court to correct the interpretation of so called “joint enterprise” law.
 
He said:
 
“There is no doubt in my mind that a large number of people have been unjustly convicted of serious offences including murder over the last thirty years because of the misinterpretation of the mental element required for somebody to be convicted on a joint enterprise basis.”
 
Sean cautioned, nevertheless, that it will be a long, hard struggle for those who seek to overturn convictions in joint enterprise cases. He continued:
 
“Every case will have to be considered on its own facts. The Court of Appeal will be very reluctant to open the floodgates to thousands of potential appeals.
 
 “The Supreme Court itself made clear that their putting the law right does not render invalid all convictions which were arrived at over many years by courts faithfully applying the law as then laid down.
 
 “Existing convictions can be set aside only by seeking exceptional leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time.
 
 “The Court of Appeal will not grant leave to appeal simply because the law then applied has now been declared to have been mistaken.
 
 “Whilst the Supreme Court decision today gives hope to many, it is only the start of a long process with an uncertain outcome.”

If you had a “Together” mortgage/loan from Northern Rock between 1999 and March 2008, you may be entitled to be repaid or re-credited the interest which you paid.
 
Northern Rock themselves estimate that 41,000 of their customers may be entitled to compensation at a likely cost of £258 million if their appeal against a High Court judgment fails.
Northern Rock has already paid out about £270m in refunded interest payments to customers who borrowed less than £25,000 in personal loans in this way before April 2008, after it was found that the loan documents did not comply with the Consumer Credit Act.
“Together” mortgages enabled borrowers to combine a mortgage with a personal loan of up to £30,000 that in total could be worth more than the property itself.
The High Court handed down judgment in NRAM plc v McAdam and Hartley[2014] EWHC 4174 in December.The proceedings were brought by Northern Rock itself to determine the status of its “Together” mortgage agreements.  The agreements in question were made between 1999 and March 2008.

Mark Forman is commercial partner at MSB Solicitors in Liverpool and deals with commercial law; commercial litigation and employment matters.

As any entrepreneur will tell you, getting a business idea off the ground isn’t easy - there are challenges along every step of the way. Who are my audience and how can I best communicate with them? How can I anticipate, and importantly achieve growth? And of course, how can I finance my business through the early stages?

In 2009, a new concept grew from the US and gave entrepreneurs and business owners across the globe an alternative option for raising investment. Crowdfunding affords enterprising individuals a platform to access millions of would-be investors, and enables individuals to group together to invest into a business opportunity that they would not otherwise have been able to.

Statistics indicate that around 95% of business plans are thrown out when they reach the investment phase, with creative, artistic and charitable sectors being among the most affected. The crowdfunding model then, was much welcomed by many.