Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Recovering from injuries associated with car accidents, slips, falls, or worksite mishaps can be as emotionally straining as it is physically straining. Those who’ve been injured might consider filing a lawsuit to recover the damages they deserve, especially when mounting medical bills and lost income leave newly-injured patients teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Personal injury lawsuits are a great option for those who are injured and in need of compensation. Unfortunately, any person(s) involved in a physically-debilitating accident will have to maneuver the maze of common myths surrounding personal injury lawsuits.
For guidance in your personal injury pursuits and for more information on auto accidents, workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, slip & fall, and wrongful death, you should check available resources on the subject. Once you are informed, use the following list to dispel any potentially distorting myths surrounding personal injury lawsuits.
Oftentimes, lawyers will collect their fees once you win your case. In some instances, your lawyer can actually request compensation for legal fees as part of the settlement. If the defendant isn’t required to pay your legal fees, these fees can be taken out of your total award.
With these payment strategies, you won’t have to pay out of pocket, and you won’t need to pay a retainer fee. As a warning, you’ll want your lawyer to determine how strong your case is before recruiting their services. Otherwise, you’ll be drowning in legal fees with no compensation for your sustained injuries.
Oftentimes, lawyers will collect their fees once you win your case.
Successful personal injury law firms sometimes advertise their services as an untapped gold mine. Despite any flashy confidence on their websites, your personal injury lawyer must still overcome the burden of proof for your case. You may feel as though the case is “open and shut”, but that doesn’t mean that the court or a jury will agree.
The good news is that reputable attorneys will always be honest with you about the prospects of your case, so you should go into your case with a realistic idea of what’s possible. In fact, many personal injury attorneys won’t take your case unless they’re confident they can win, so having an attorney accept your case is a good sign that it is winnable.
Some cases can be settled quickly simply because the defendant is anxious to close the case and is willing to sacrifice compensation in the name of convenience. On the other hand, many cases devolve into a tug of war for compensation or further evidence, which can drag on for months.
Regardless of the situation, don’t expect that you’ll make a lot of money in the blink of an eye. You can ask your lawyer if they have any idea how long it’ll take to close the case, but oftentimes, they won’t be able to give you any specifics. Your lawyer is only working with the information they’re given by the defendant. Some people will be willing to go to court, and some defense attorneys will move slowly on purpose.
Personal injury claims are subject to the statute of limitations for the state. When your lawyer takes the case, they’ll need to know when the injury occurred. In most states, the statute of limitations is 2-3 years.
However, there are many cases where an injury-sufferer won’t realise the extent of their injuries until years after the incident. In search of compensation, some injury-sufferers may have even been instructed to not file a claim, or faced retaliation that stalled the progress of their case.
[ymal]
In some circumstances, the at-fault driver may cover all medical expenses and necessary repairs as part of a settlement or insurance claim. However, personal injury cases are handled differently from state to state. For example, some states use a doctrine known as “contributory negligence,” where the percentage of your fault determines the percentage of your award.
For example, if you were to receive $100,000 in a settlement, you’ll only receive $70,000 if you were found to be 30% responsible for the accident. Other states use comparative negligence where both drivers are judged for how much they contributed to the accident. Unfortunately, these figures tend to be less exact.
Most states do not force injured parties to prove that they didn’t cause their own accidents. The injured party is only required to show that someone else’s negligence caused the accident, and that is, oftentimes, enough to recover damages.
Unfortunately, you’re not guaranteed a win if the other party involved is proven to be negligent. Their lawyer could claim that other mitigating factors should be considered. Those mitigating factors might reduce the award or nullify it completely. A good lawyer won’t guarantee anything, and they’ll be honest with you about the progress of your case.
Insurance companies prioritize making money over the well-being of their customers. Your insurance provider will often do anything they can to avoid paying for your injuries.
To dodge payment, insurance companies may record your calls, or the adjuster might try to trap you by asking confusing questions. Insurance companies will even send lawyers to fight any settlement you might receive. Always speak to a lawyer before disclosing any information to your insurance provider.
When you’re involved in a personal injury case, you should make sure that you contact an attorney as soon as possible. Your attorney will research the case, give you all the advice you need, and help guide you through the process. Before recruiting the services of a lawyer, you’ll need to understand how the attorney will be paid and how your insurance works. Most importantly, you’ll need to accept that your innocence does not automatically guarantee compensation.
At this point, it goes without saying that the reason behind the community quarantines is to ensure that the virus doesn’t spread further than it already has. Because the majority of people were asked to stay within the confines of their homes, this caused various business sectors to halt. Gyms are closed, schools and universities have suspended classroom lectures, restaurants operated at 50% capacity or not at all. These are all economy-draining measures that are as necessary as they are difficult to accept. And while it’s true that almost all industries took a significant hit during the pandemic, one business sector that is easily overlooked is that of the commercial and rental property sector.
We all need a place to stay during the pandemic. But what about the people who don’t own a house? How do they pay rent or mortgage, considering the fact that most jobs are currently suspended? The law also takes this into consideration by putting in place the following measures:
Most states issued an emergency order to temporarily cease property evictions. However, this does not mean that tenants get free lodging. This order merely means that courts will not hear eviction cases while the order is in effect. Tenants will still have to pay rent even if they cannot be evicted for nonpayment.
Another point of concern for many members of the citizenry comes in the form of foreclosures in light of being unable to pay for their mortgages. It’s a scary thought to consider, especially when losing your home during the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the worst things that can happen. However, citizens need not worry as while the Federal Government cannot interfere with the obligations between private parties, it can suspend foreclosures for any federally-held mortgages.
[ymal]
In a similar manner, many states have also halted electricity, water, and sewage shutoffs until the state’s disaster declaration expires. However, this suspension on utility shut offs does not take effect automatically. Customers need to contact their utility provider in order to use this measure.
Let’s not forget that there may be some landowners that opt to physically bar tenants from entering a rental property. It should be known that your landlord cannot keep you from accessing your home during this pandemic, even when the lease indicates that the landlord may change the locks. When they do change the locks, they are required to give their tenants the key to the unit.
Should you experience a landlord trying to forcefully evict you during these difficult times, it’s important that you get in contact with someone knowledgeable in Property Law. Even when you’re able to attain knowledge from property law courses online, it’s best to augment this knowledge with the training and experience of a lawyer who specialises in this field of the law.
Even as we endure these difficult times, we should never forget that the law, too, endures. Even during upheavals such as this pandemic, the law rules over the land, and it protects the citizenry from undue cruelty and mistreatment.
The daily pre-coronavirus life of any lawyer included a hectic schedule and long hours of meeting with clients, attending court hearings and filing legal documents. As the pandemic sweeps across the world, that daily schedule is changing along with everything else.
If you are new to working from a home-based office, it may be tough to adjust to your new surroundings. Thanks to technology, many professionals can conduct most of their vital business with the use of laptop computers, email and video conferencing. This allows most lawyers to keep up with their most important cases and clients right from home.
If your family is also at home due to school and work closures, it can be a challenge to organize your day so that you can still be effective for your clients. As a divorce lawyer, you know that communicating with your clients, no matter where you set up your office, is an essential part of your business. Let’s take a look at a few of the ways that you can work from home and still get the job done.
Although it’s great to be able to answer your emails and take phone calls whilst wearing your pajamas, there are drawbacks to working from home that can affect your productivity. It’s important to create a dedicated space with limited distractions where you can concentrate on your work.
A spare bedroom, home office space or even your garage are great substitutions for a temporary office area. It’s important to find a space that will give you both privacy and comfort. Keep in mind that if you are conducting any kind of video calls that your background is appropriate and not distracting to clients and colleagues.
A spare bedroom, home office space or even your garage are great substitutions for a temporary office area.
When you are at home, your spouse and family may draw your attention more than you expect. Make sure to talk with your family about when it’s alright to intrude on your working time. Create rules like “knocking first” to help you get the privacy you need and limit distractions.
Working from home can be a very liberating exercise where you can take total control over your daily schedule. However, it can be easy to get sidetracked if you don’t establish some sort of order and routine. Set a specific work schedule for yourself and stick to it. You can work whatever hours are convenient for you but, it’s important to keep to the same routine every day.
There is so much uncertainty and fear surrounding the pandemic and your clients may be overly concerned about the status of their cases. It’s vital to take the time to communicate with all of your clients and keep them updated on what is going on. Any legal proceeding is stressful for clients, so it’s up to you to stay in touch and let them know that you are still working for them and their families.
[ymal]
Your work culture is something that you may notice that you miss more than anything. Make sure that you communicate regularly with your colleagues so that you can stay updated on everything that is going on at your firm. You may not be able to see each other physically but, staying in the loop will help you to feel more in control.
Millions of people around the world are trying their best to adapt to life during the coronavirus pandemic. It’s important to be patient and vigilant about adhering to your local restrictions. Take the time to set up a productive workspace in your home and follow some of these tips to help you stay on top of your cases and clients.
A new report published on Tuesday by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) has found that a backlog of criminal cases being handled by the Crown Prosecution Service is increasing at an alarming rate, owing to the challenges of maintaining social distancing and maintaining a safe court environment.
The report estimated that trial backlogs in magistrates’ courts increased by 43% between the beginning of March and the end of May, while the backlog in crown courts increased by 53% in the same time period.
HMCPS chief inspector Kevin McGinty warned that the case count will continue to grow under current operating conditions: “Court sittings and courtroom capacity with social distancing requirements will not allow for reduction of the existing backlog,” he wrote in the report.
“Some estimates show that the current scale of increase in the backlog would take 10 years to clear at pre-pandemic rates. Any major increase in the time taken to hear cases is likely to be highly detrimental to justice.”
The release of the report comes as the justice secretary, Robert Buckland, has announced that he is drafting emergency legislation to enable some trials to be held temporarily without juries in order to reduce the complications of social distancing in courtrooms. Earlier this month, the Ministry of Justice also announced its intent to establish emergency “Nightingale Courts” in alternative venues in order to decrease the mounting case backlog.
“These would use public spaces, such as civic centres or university moot courts, to allow traditional court buildings to manage more work while maintaining social distancing,” Ministry of Justice leaders said in the joint announcement.
Depending on their clients’ public perception, lawyers may face ridicule for their role in defending them – though they just as often go on to find work with equally prominent employers. Below, we look at the lawyers who represented three high-profile figures, and how their careers developed as a result.
Billed “The Trial of the Century”, People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson captivated national attention not only due to the defendant’s celebrity status, but also the role played by Simpson’s lavishly paid “Dream Team” of attorneys. Tasked with convincing a jury that there was reason to doubt that Simpson had murdered his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, the assembled attorneys were each well-known as professionals prior to the case and became household names as the trial was broadcast to over 95 million people.
The team was led first by Robert Shapiro, then by the flamboyant Johnnie L. Cochran, whose refrain: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” – arguing that bloody gloves found on Simpson’s property were invalid as evidence due to their size – endured long after Simpson’s acquittal. Cochran earned up to $5 million for his work on the Simpson case, expanded his law firm to fifteen states and made regular talk show appearances.
The remainder of the Dream Team went on to achieve varying levels of success. Robert Kardashian, who had been Simpson’s personal friend and reactivated his license to practise law specifically to represent him, did not take on other clients and became largely eclipsed by the reality TV success of his ex-wife Kris and their children. DNA specialists Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld co-founded The Innocence Project, which has used DNA evidence to overturn hundreds of wrongful convictions.
[ymal]
One of the few surviving members of the team is F. Lee Bailey, famed for his cross-examination of LAPD investigator Mark Fuhrman. In the early 2000s, Bailey was disbarred in Florida and Massachusetts for alleged misconduct in handling a client’s case, and eventually filed for bankruptcy. He has referred to himself as a victim of “the O.J. curse”, believing that his role in the case played a part in his subsequent shunning by several state bar associations.
Jon Venables and his co-defendant Robert Thompson, both aged 10, were tried in 1993 for the murder of 2-year-old James Bulger in Liverpool. Both the brutality of the killing and the age of the then-unnamed suspects caused outcry in the UK, as it emerged that Thompson and Venables had left school, lured Bulger away from his mother and tortured him before leaving his body on a railway.
Laurence Lee received the call to represent Venables after his arrest on 18 February, initially believing it to be a case of simple truancy. Though he soon became convinced of the boys’ guilt, Lee represented Jon Venables in court and pushed for a “not guilty” plea when the prosecution would not accept a charge of manslaughter alleging Thompson as the prime mover. Lee described the case as “a living nightmare” but did not regret taking it on. “A criminal lawyer who refuses a murder case, no matter how gruesome, shouldn't be practising law. Simple as that,” he told The Guardian. “And if you’ve got ambition, of course you’ll take it on.”
Venables and Thompson were both found guilty of killing Bulger, becoming the UK’s youngest convicted murderers, and were issued with new identities. Lee initially faced difficulty continuing his work after the trial’s conclusion. “For a long time after the case, I never went to work,” he said. “No case could tempt me back into court – until the bank manager phoned up and said ‘You’d better do some work’.” Lee continues to practise law, helming his own Liverpool-based firm. In 2018, when it emerged that Venables had again been arrested for downloading and distributing child pornography, Lee made headlines by coming out in support of waiving Venables’ anonymity.
“A criminal lawyer who refuses a murder case, no matter how gruesome, shouldn't be practising law. Simple as that.”
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz had both achieved notoriety in their careers before their work for Jeffrey Epstein. Starr was known as the independent counsel who compiled the Starr Report, which publicized the graphic details of President Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and formed the crux of impeachment proceedings against him. Meanwhile, Dershowitz had been a member of O.J. Simpson’s famed Dream Team and had built a reputation as a lawyer who would doggedly represent powerful men accused of sexual misconduct, once infamously describing a woman raped by Mike Tyson as “hardly the naïve virgin she pretended to be.”
The two men came together in 2008 as part of the defence team for Epstein, who was accused of the statutory rape of numerous girls. Though the charges arrayed against him might have resulted in a life sentence, Epstein was ultimately offered a non-prosecution agreement that Starr and Dershowitz helped to negotiate. Pleading guilty to one charge of solicitation of prostitution, Epstein was sentenced to eighteen months in a county jail and released after thirteen.
Starr and Dershowitz’s fortunes dipped somewhat following the case. Though Starr became president and chancellor of Baylor University in 2010, he was fired six years later as a report found that the school had not done enough to address serious rape allegations against athletes, which had involved at least seventeen women. Dershowitz was accused by one of Epstein’s victims as having participated in her abuse and, though the case never went to trial, resulted in a diminished media profile for some years. Following the 2016 election, however, Starr and Dershowitz made regular appearances on Fox News – reportedly winning the favour of President Trump, who then hired them both for his impeachment defence team.
In a 5-4 ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Louisiana law restricting access to abortions as unconstitutional, delivering a blow to anti-abortion groups.
The law required that doctors who performed abortions in the state to “admitting privileges” – written agreements with local hospitals to transfer patients – with hospitals “not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced”.
While the state said that this requirement was necessary for protecting the health of patients, abortion advocates said that abortion patients rarely require a hospital transfer and that many of hospitals in the state did not allow abortions to take place on their premises, leaving abortion clinics unable to operate.
By thus restricting access to abortions, advocates claimed, the law acted against women’s constitutional right to an abortion as found in the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberal justices in delivering the 5-4 ruling, and in his written opinion referenced a similar law in Texas that was deemed unconstitutional in 2016, establishing precedent for the Court’s decision on Monday.
“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents,” he wrote.
Aman Johal, Lawyer and Director of Your Lawyers, illuminates the scandal for Lawyer Monthly.
Car manufacturer Daimler (Mercedes) is alleged to have installed software to ‘cheat’ diesel engine emissions testing in a similar way to Volkswagen.
Daimler is accused of fitting affected vehicles with “defeat devices” which are illegal under EU law. Such devices may allow vehicles to pass emissions testing and secure road safety approval under EU emissions regulations by detecting when a vehicle is on a test cycle that results in emissions-reducing technology to engage. However, once on the road and outside of test conditions, these same vehicles could produce quantities of NOx emissions far above EU and US standards.
Although news of the legal action we are taking has only recently hit the headlines, this is not a new issue for Mercedes vehicles. In Germany, Mercedes’s parent company Daimler was fined £776 million after 774,000 vehicles allegedly fitted with "defeat devices" were recalled across the country throughout 2018. Now, in the UK, it’s estimated that half a million vehicles could contain “defeat devices”, and owners could be eligible to claim substantial damages in compensation.
Although news of the legal action we are taking has only recently hit the headlines, this is not a new issue for Mercedes vehicles.
For many, this story may feel like déjà vu. Back in 2015, over 1.2 million Volkswagen vehicles across England and Wales were under recall for defeat device technology. The High Court recently ruled that the technology used by Volkswagen is a type of defeat device, and tens of thousands of owners now await compensation. Your Lawyers spearheaded the initial legal effort to bring VW to justice with the first High Court action in January 2016, and was appointed with a seat on the Steering Committee by the High Court of Justice in 2018 having previously represented over 10,000 claimants. With an estimated average of £8,500 in compensation for each claimant, the action could total up to £10.2 billion nationwide as one of the largest group actions the UK has ever seen.
If the High Court rules in a similar way for the pending action against Daimler, owners taking part in what will become the latest ‘dieselgate’ litigation may also be due compensation. Revelations about the use of defeat devices has caused a great deal of understandable concern. In the US, it has been estimated that 59 premature deaths may have been caused by the excess pollution produced between 2008 and 2015 by vehicles equipped with a defeat device.
[ymal]
Drivers who have owned or leased a Mercedes-Benz diesel car or van, first registered between 2009 and 2018, should look to claim compensation. Some owners could be eligible to claim under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT) which can allow a claimant to receive up to 100% of the purchase price of their vehicle in cases where a vehicle manufacturer has engaged in ‘very serious’ prohibitive practices. This could fall to 75%, 50%, or 25% if the prohibitive practices are deemed to be less severe.
This means that Claimants eligible for a 100% CPUT claim could be entitled to receive between £23,775 and £96,220 in compensation depending on the model of their vehicle, according to ‘on the road’ price data from Mercedes in May 2020. Almost a third of Volkswagen Claimants are estimated to be eligible for a CPUT compensation claim and a similar proportion of Mercedes drivers are also expected to be eligible, if not more. We encourage Mercedes owners to come forward as soon as possible to claim compensation owed to them via Your Lawyers’ dedicated website: The Car Emissions Lawyers.
If Mercedes-Benz is found to have used “defeat devices” to cheat EU emissions regulations, they must be held to account for any irreversible human and environmental damage caused, and compensation should be issued to owners. Much like the Volkswagen case in 2015, we may be looking at another example of a big corporation putting profits before people, the environment, and public health.
Divorce is almost always a contentious process. In it, you are fighting against the one that you once loved, or perhaps even continue to love. You will have to go into the details of your relationship to prove certain points; and you will have to share them with others, strangers at that!
The whole separation is stressful, not only to the couple, but also to their children. Seeing their family crumbling is surely not the most pleasant experience. As is the case most of the time, kids love both parents and it pains them that in one way or another they will have to take sides.
Many divorce lawyers say that they approach each case with the intent to put the rights and welfare of the children first. Given this, it’s logical to assume that it’s going to be easy to reach a resolution as far as the kids are concerned. But this is not always the case. In this article, we present three of the most important factors that inform the court’s decision regarding child custody disputes.
Many divorce lawyers say that they approach each case with the intent to put the rights and welfare of the children first.
Among the most basic things that the courts look at is the financial capability of the parents. The rule of thumb is to award custody to the one that has material resources. And this makes sense since the kids need money for school, healthcare, and other basic needs. To prove their points, both parents may have to submit documents that state that they have a home to live in and a job that pays an income.
It is easy to decide on this if the disparity is significant. But if both parents are of more or less the same financial standing, the battle can become a little heated. It becomes even more so if neither is willing to compromise. In such cases, the courts will have to look at other factors.
The living arrangement of the kids will be determined in detail by the court. The rendered decision may cover important aspects such as in whose house the kids are going to live and how support from the other parent will be paid. Many decisions also determine visiting schedules.
A good child custody lawyer should know that money and other material things are not the only things that are important. Above all else, kids need a safe environment that is free from emotional stressors. Interactions between ex-partners who separated on bitter terms can bring undue stress on the kids. A good lawyer can ask the court to limit the need for in-person interactions (e.g. support payments must be made via online transfers, etc.) or in extreme cases deny visitation rights altogether.
[ymal]
However, such points are a bit challenging to establish. This is really where an experienced lawyer can have great contributions.
Besides putting the ex-partners in scrutiny, most states, Pennsylvania included, allow the courts to consider child preference in making custody decisions. The kids, after all, have the right to express their opinions and actually be heard. But how much weight the court puts in the children’s preferences differs from court to court. For sure, the court will not award custody to a financially incapable parent even if the child wants it.
Child custody battles are among the most contentious and most detailed aspects of the divorce process. Good child custody lawyers must know what factors matter in the decision-making process so that they reach a resolution without complicating an already stressful situation.
Novartis International AG has reached settlements with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to resolve all currently active investigations into the allegedly improper conduct of its overseas subsidiaries.
In a statement, DOJ assistant attorney general Brian Benczkowski described the company as having “profited from bribes that induced medical professionals, hospitals, and clinics to prescribe Novartis-branded pharmaceuticals and use Alcon surgical products,” and concealing evidence of said bribery by falsifying records.
According to the agreement reached, Novartis Greece paid employees to provide “improper benefits” of its drug Lucentis to doctors between 2012 and 2015 to boost sales, and falsified records to conceal evidence of criminality.
A similar scheme was conducted by Alcon Pte Ltd, Novartis’s former subsidiary in Vietnam, where employees made corrupt payments through a third party to staff at state-run medical centres to boost sales of intraocular lenses. Again, records were falsified to record the issued bribes as consulting, marketing and human resource expenses.
With the settlement payments – which total $234 million to the DOJ and $113 million to the SEC – “all outstanding FCPA investigations into the company are now closed,” according to a statement issued by General counsel Shannon Thyme Klinger.
“Today’s settlements represent another milestone in our commitment to resolving legacy compliance issues and ensuring that Novartis truly lives its values.”
The Greek government has announced that it will be seeking compensation from Novartis for losses incurred by the state in connection with the bribery scandal.
Rahman Ravelli's Legal Director, Nicola Sharp, shares with Lawyer Monthly her analysis of the restrictions that are hampering the CMA's ability to do its job.
Among all the inevitable noise and statements of intent prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) made it clear how it was going to set about its task.
The CMA’s establishing of a COVID-19 task force to monitor market developments and identify the biggest problems was understandable. Its updates emphasised the need for action – and revealed that the period 10 March to 17 May had seen it contacted more than 60,000 times by those with coronavirus-related complaints. When disclosing the 60,000-plus figure, the CMA emphasised that it “will not hesitate to take enforcement action”.
But, unfortunately, the CMA’s bark appears louder than its bite. Its chairman, former Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie, has announced he is quitting after two years, citing the “inherent limits’’ of his position when it comes to bringing in reforms – and having previously said that UK competition law was not fit for the modern age. Meanwhile, the CMA’s declaration of intent regarding COVID-19 was swiftly followed by a request for tough temporary powers to tackle pandemic-related wrongdoing. Yet this application was denied by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS) – a decision that must have left the CMA looking enviously at countries such as the US and France, where its counterparts were being given the proactive, intrusive powers they requested.
The pros and cons of the situation the CMA finds itself in could be discussed and debated at length. But there is little doubt that the CMA has, arguably through no fault of its own, been shown to be lacking firepower at this current time. Unfortunately, its inability to go on the offensive is nothing new.
Five years ago, the results of the CMA’s 18-month competition probe into UK retail and business banking was met with widespread anger from politicians, business lobbies and some banks, who branded it inadequate. This came just a year after the CMA was incurring the wrath of some in the insurance industry for a lack of action on credit repair. And a year after its banking saga, its report into the energy market was accused of being a damp squib, a whitewash and a symptom of the CMA’s retreat in the face of pressure from the big six power companies.
When you also consider that just three months ago the CMA was being criticised for what many saw as its timid approach in its interim report on online platforms and digital advertising, its lack of clout when it comes to tackling a pandemic can’t be seen as a one-off.
The nature of the CMA’s work means that it will never please everyone in all business sectors all the time. Which is why, for many in business, taking matters into their own hands may be a more effective course of action than relying on an organisation that – sometimes at least – seems to be fighting the good fight with one hand tied behind its back.
Anyone seeking redress for what they see as improper business behaviour may well be better off looking to take action themselves rather than relying on an overworked and underpowered CMA. This becomes arguably a more logical, obvious approach the more complex or high-stakes the issue in question is. Civil litigation could well prove to be a swifter, more direct route for those in business looking to put right the wrongs that are hampering their business.
This is not another criticism of the CMA. Let’s be clear, competition and consumer law is limited and prevents the CMA from being able to combat effectively many of the issues that affect those in business. The CMA may continue to push for new or greater powers so that it can be increasingly effective. But right now civil litigation has to be seen as the most direct way of putting such power in the hands of those that need to see it exercised on their behalf.
Cartels and anti-competitive behaviour have the potential to be hugely damaging to most, if not all, areas of national, international and globalised business. Markets can be distorted. Those who feel the effects of this need to feel confident that when it happens they can seek recourse.
In the UK, the Competition Act 1988 and Article 81 of the European Community Treaty have prohibited cartels. A business found to be a member of a cartel could be fined up to 10% of its worldwide turnover. And in June 2003, when Part 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002 came into force, individuals were targeted. Section 188 of the Act set out the definition of the new criminal cartel offence, whereby an individual is guilty of the offence if they have agreed with another person to make or implement - or cause to be made or implemented - an arrangement between at least two parties to fix prices, limit supply or production, share customers, share supply or to enter into bid-rigging arrangements.
This was a much-needed piece of legislation. But it falls to the CMA to enforce it. And unfortunately, as we have said earlier, hanging your hopes on the CMA may well lead to disappointment. Civil litigation may well be the best immediate hope for those wanting action to be taken. Such stand-alone claims do not require any input from the CMA at any stage. And there is even a case to be made for bringing a private prosecution against those who are believed to have breached the legislation that the CMA is expected to enforce.
This may be a situation that has been highlighted by COVID-19 but it is certainly not a recent development.
