Search results

In recent enforcement actions by several capital market regulators in some common law jurisdictions, the issue of directors' reliance on legal advice in relation to compliance with their statutory duties has been raised. This paper aims to discuss the dilemma faced by directors and regulators in assessing the extent to which reliance on legal advice can provide sufficient protection against allegation of breach of directors' duties and the disclosure obligation.

This paper discusses recent case studies that highlight the often conflicting regulatory stance.

These cases indicate that the disclosure conundrum is a real challenge to regulators and directors alike. These enforcement activities have resulted in mixed views as to whether these decisions have rightly upheld the standard of care expected to be exercised by directors or are unduly burdensome and not pragmatic for honest and well‐meaning directors.

The legal position is still evolving in view of the numerous regulatory actions in various jurisdictions regarding financial reporting and disclosure obligation of directors and corporations.

Given the numerous disclosure and reporting obligations that a listed company must comply with and the regulatory enforcement actions that may be taken against the directors, it is important for directors to understand the implication of this case and similar enforcement activities on directors' oversight duty.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Reports the results of a case study undertaken as part of a doctoral research programme carried out to investigate the information needs of, and provision to, the legal community in Kenya. The case study, is based on data collected from a one‐man law firm in Kisumu, Kenya. Data were collected by interviews and observation. Although essentially a case study, the results reflect the kind of experiences and problems that lawyers in Kenya, working in single law firms, experience in accessing legal information. Concludes that the only practicable way lawyers can maximise the availability of legal information in the country is by setting up their own law library on a co‐operative basis. Reliance on court libraries is futile as the libraries are already over‐stretched by the needs of the Bench.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.