Foundation Degree Business Law Assignment: Corporate Legislations

This assignment solution addresses key concepts in business law, focusing on corporate legislations and their application through various case studies. The document begins with an analysis of individual cases involving issues such as unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, including religious discrimination, harassment, and disability discrimination. Each case examines the relevant legal rules and provides an application of those rules to the given facts, leading to a conclusion on the likely outcome. The assignment then explores the principle of separate legal entity, its implications, and the concept of the corporate veil. Finally, the document discusses vicarious liability, specifically in the context of an employer's responsibility for the actions of its employees. The solution provides a detailed explanation of vicarious liability and its components, concluding with a practical example. This assignment covers a wide range of business law topics, including employment law, discrimination law, and corporate law principles.

Running Head: Corporate Legislations
CORPORATE LEGISLATIONS

Corporate Legislations
Table of Contents
Question 1..................................................................................................................................2
Jacob’s Case...........................................................................................................................2
Sebastian’s Case.....................................................................................................................3
Jamal’s Case...........................................................................................................................4
Mal’s Case..............................................................................................................................5
Elizabeth and Mark’s Case.....................................................................................................6
Nick’s Case............................................................................................................................7
Question 2..................................................................................................................................8
Question 3..................................................................................................................................9
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................11
1 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
Question 1
Jacob’s Case
Issue
In Jacob’s case, two critical issues are arising out regarding Jacob’s dismissal: (i) whether
Jacob’s dismissal will be considered unfair under the purview of Employment Rights Act,
1996? (ii) If Jacob’s dismissal is because of his religion so will he be eligible to bring the
claim under The Equality Act, 2010?
Rule
According to Section 94 (1) of The Employment Rights Act, 1996, employee has protection
from getting terminated by employer (Anon., n.d.). There is a condition for claiming of this
right which is given in section 108 of Employment Rights Act which says that section 94 will
not apply in the cases where the employee has not completed two years of employment with
the current employer (Anon., n.d.). Section 39 (2) (c) of The Equality Act 2010, protects an
employee from being get dismissed by the employer on the basis of discrimination (Anon.,
n.d.). A landmark ruling has pronounced Treganowan v Robert Knee and Co Ltd [1975] ICR
405 QBD on conflict among people of the company. It was held that a conflict or identity
between people could be viewed as some other considerable explanation behind these
reasons.
Application
2 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
The above mention case is the reason that the company will argue if Jacob makes a case. It is
highly debatable that Jacob has recorded the confidential meeting but the recording can be
primary evidence in proving the claims of Jacob.
Conclusion
If Jacob wants to return to the work then he should seek a claim under Employment Rights
Act but if he does not want to return then he should ask for a claim under Equality Act
because he may get a high amount of compensation under the Equality Act.
Sebastian’s Case
Issue
The only issue arising, in this case, is whether Sebastian can bring a claim under wrong
dismissal or unfair dismissal.
Rule
The act of taking bribes falls in the category of criminal acts under section 43B (1) (a) of The
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Anon., n.d.). Moreover, Protected Disclosure prescribed is in
section 43A of The Employment Rights Act, 1996 (Anon., n.d.) for the employees.
Application
Sebastian has not been working in the company so it will not legally right to bring the claim
under unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Therefore, he can bring the claim under
wrongful dismissal. The main reason for Sebastian’s dismissal is that he disclosed the issue
of taking bribes by some of the employees. He disclosed this to his manager. The information
3 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
or disclosure by Sebastian to his manager regarding the unlawful acts of bribery comes under
the category of Protected Disclosure in section 43A of the Employment Rights Act, 1996.
Conclusion
The kind of disclosure that has been done by Sebastian is very important and it may temper
with the goodwill of the company. Therefore, Sebastian should be provided with protection
from wrongful dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of Sebastian will automatically fall into the
category of unfair and wrong dismissal.
Jamal’s Case
Issue
The main issue arising out in this situation is that whether Becca alone is liable for
harassment of Jamal or the company too is vicariously liable.
Rule
According to section 26 (1) of Equality Act 2010 says that harassment happens when a
person involves in conduct which is relevant to a protected characteristic which causes
aggressive, humiliating, intimidating or undesirable environment and is affecting person’s
dignity (Anon., n.d.). The question arises whether this type of situation comes up is mostly a
question of fact.
Application
From the facts of the case, it is quite clear that Becca is having a reputation of being a
provocative person. After the official business dinner, she followed him to his room and
4 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
leaned on him against Jamal’s wishes. She told him that she can help his career if he comes in
reciprocal agreement with her. It can be assumed that the kind of Becca’s request that she
wants to get intimate with Jamal and comes under the shade of section 11 of the Equality Act
2010.
Conclusion
Jamal’s dignity was violated by Becca’s acts and if he can prove that Becca is guilty than
automatically he can hold the company vicariously liable for the acts of Becca because they
were on the official business meetings.
Mal’s Case
Issue
The issue, in this case is whether Mal is eligible to bring a claim against his fellow employees
regarding harassment.
Rule
Section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 has defined the term harassment. Section 12 of the
Equality Act 2010 defines sexual orientation as an act of sexual preference for person of
same or opposite gender (Anon., n.d.).
Application
Mal can sue the company under section 26 (1) for harassment as he was the victim of many
taunts and jokes in the company regarding his sexual preference. Harassment merely due to
5 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
sexual orientation can be in the form of verbal or written remark, because some people think
that it is subject of laughing, besides conversations and violence. Mal might get demotivated
and his capacity of working might decrease, or he might absent from due to stress.
Conclusion
Mal can get a claim under section 26 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 as it clearly defines the
harassment and Mal’s incident comes in the purview of the said section. But on the contrary,
he cannot bring the claim under Section 12 of the Equality Act because the sexual orientation
of obejctophelia is not defined under this section. So, unfortunately, his claim will be
unsuccessful.
Elizabeth and Mark’s Case
Issue
The key issue is whether discrimination against Elizabeth and Mark comes under Section 11
and 9 of the Equality Act 2010 respectively.
Rule
Gender is a Protected Characteristic described in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010. A
claim under section 9 of the Equality Act 2010 can be brought because of discrimination on
the basis of race by Mark (Anon., n.d.). Elizabeth can bring the claim under section 23 (1) of
the Equality Act 2010.
Application
6 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
Elizabeth is treated less favorably because she is the only female team leader in the team. For
proving her claim she can choose one of the team leaders to compare and become successful
in bringing the claim. The situation of Mark is less complicated as he can easily bring the
claim against the company because he is facing discrimination on the basis of his race.
Conclusion
Elizabeth and Mark both will be successful in their claims respectively against the company
as both will prove their situation easily.
Nick’s Case
Issue
The issue, in this case, is whether Nick’s obesity will fall in the purview of disability?
Rule
Disability is a Protected Characteristic under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (Anon., n.d.).
An employee can claim under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 (Anon., n.d.) which says
that an employer is required to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate an employee
with a disability. There is a judgment given in case Karsten Kaltoft v Billund Kommune, C-
354/13 of European Court of Justice on disability. The European Court of Justice held that
disability should include obesity for the purpose of Equality Act 2010.
Application
7 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
So relying on the case of Karsten, Nick’s obesity will be a part of disability so Nick should
raise a query under section 20 of Equality Act 2010 (Anon., n.d.) which says that an
employer is required to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate an employee with a
disability. Nick will be able to claim that he has been treated less favorably, in terms of not
reflecting the right image, when failing to gain promotion and that this less favorable
treatment is based on his.
Conclusion
Nick should take help from the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that his
employer does not treat him less favorably, both in terms of accommodating his disability
and his promotion prospects. The company should take steps to mitigate the difficulties that
Nick has climbing stairs, and set his office on the ground floor.
Question 2
The concept of holding companies liable for the negligent actions like a natural person is
known as the Principle of Separate Legal Entity. In modern times, all of the companies,
which are set up in the territory of the United Kingdom, are being treated as a separate legal
entity. This concept came in the famous case, Saloman v. Saloman [1897] AC 22, it was held
that when a company is registered, then it becomes a legal commodity and is different and
distinct from its investors. This principle advises to companies that they are separate legal
entities which are persons having all legal rights and liabilities and its existence is not
dependent on directors. It is having rights and liabilities of a normal people (Whiteley et al.,
2016). The companies have right to sue and someone can sue the company as well, can buy a
8 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
property and can form a contract and have identity separate from its directors. In Peate v.
Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1964] HCA 84; 111 CLR 443; (1963) ALR 354 the court
applied the said principle stating ‘a new legal personality is born out in the form of a
company.
Separate identity and restricted obligation have various advantages. Be that as it may, this
partition among the organization and its owners and controllers is depicted on regular basis as
corporate veil, a cover that manages assurance for liabilities of the organization (Anon., n.d.).
The corporate veil is a crucial idea of the United Kingdom corporate law that works as a
protective tool for persons who are working in the other side of organization. To forestall
such maltreatment of conventions of independent identity and restricted obligation, courts
have interpreted that sometimes it is necessary to lift the corporate veil to put obligations on
the real guilty party which holes up beyond the company. To hold a company vicariously
liable for a negligent act, the first thing is to prove that there is a duty of care and if there is a
duty of care then the principle of separate legal entity arises. These characteristic people are
frequently viewed as operators of the organization and now and then its representatives. In
any case, such common people do not generally go about as specialists or representatives of
the organization. They have their separate lives and some have different business to deal
with. This can be a wellspring of extraordinary trouble, particularly where such individual
reason wounds to an outsider and it is important to decide if such individual or the
organization or both are dependable to the harmed party.
9 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
Question 3
The warehouse will be vicariously liable for the acts done by Mike and Sanjay because the
accidents that happened was the fault of Mike and Sanjay. Mike and Sanjay are employees of
the warehouse and they were in the course of employment when the accident happened.
Hence, the warehouse will be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. Vicarious
liability is holding a person liable and accountable for damages (compensation) or harm
/injury caused by other individuals. In Latin terms, this concept is known as “respondeat
superior”. The concept mostly embedded in the employment relationships where employers
are responsible for the conduct or act of their employees during the tenure of employment.
(Vicarious Liability). Vicarious Liability is a compilation by three components -
1. There should be a relationship between employer and employee;
2. There should be a tortuous act; and,
3. The act must be done within in duration of employment.
All three components are being satisfied here. The concept of vicarious liability is advocated
on the ground that despite the fact the principal/employer has not personally acted wrongfully
but since he was in actual authority or control of the person doing the wrongful act, his
liability for such a wrongful act should not be excluded. The main element to be proven by
the parties is that the act is done during the course of employment.
The company can be terminated, suspended, or stopped as a limited company by applying to
Register of Companies to get struck off and this is the cheapest way to shut down of a
company if a company voluntarily wants to stop. If the company is insolvent then the people
to whom the company owes money can legally ask them to go for compulsory liquidation
(Anon., n.d.).
10 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
Bibliography
Anon., n.d. Closing a limited company. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/closing-a-
limited-company [Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Corporate Veil Theory. [Online] Available at:
https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws/companies-act-2013/corporate-veil-theory/
[Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Employment Rights Act 1996. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/94 [Accessed 2019].
Anon., n.d. Employment Rights Act 1996. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/108 [Accessed 27 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Employment Rights Act 1996. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/IVA [Accessed 28 March 2019].
11 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
Anon., n.d. Employment Rights Act 1996. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/43A [Accessed 28 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/39 [Accessed 28 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26 [Accessed 28 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/11 [Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/12 [Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 [Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/6 [Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Equality Act 2010. [Online] Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20 [Accessed 29 March 2019].
Anon., n.d. Vicarious Liability. [Online] Available at: https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-
liability/ [Accessed 2019].
Whiteley, N., Shah, J., Denny, E. & Edwards, A., 2016. Establishing a business in the UK
(England and Wales). [Online] Available at: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-
12 | P a g e

Corporate Legislations
551-6685?
transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1
[Accessed 29 March 2019].
Cases Referred:
Treganowan v Robert Knee and Co Ltd [1975] ICR 405 QBD
Karsten Kaltoft v Billund Kommune, C-354/13
Saloman v. Saloman [1897] AC 22
Peate v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1964] HCA 84; 111 CLR 443; (1963) ALR 354
13 | P a g e