Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Rangers: is it all in the timing?

It’s been a while since our last post about Rangers and the legal spotlight has now moved from questions of insolvency and administration to that of the employment rights held by those players, including Steven Naismith and Steven Whittaker, who don’t want their contracts to transfer to “Newco”. Both sides (players and owners) agree that a right to object to a transfer arises under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) but there seems to be a difference of opinion about what the Regulations mean in practice. New owner Charles Green was quoted this morning as saying:

“It’s clear the regulations behind TUPE are if someone has an objection, they have to notify within 24 hours. This is almost two weeks after the day. I think this is just opportunism. I’ll definitely challenge it.” 

We can't see a "24 hours" provision in the Regulations but neither, in the discussions about who’s right and who’s wrong, have we yet seen mention of the case law in which precisely these issues of timing have been very carefully considered.

Friday, 8 June 2012

Who "owns" a souvenir plot?


Some would have you believe that Scots law allows anyone to be the Laird of, if not all he surveys, at least a square foot. And entering the realms of aristocracy is said to be astonishingly cheap. One site advertises souvenir plots “from just £29.99” and claims that, in return, you can “obtain a title that was previously available only to Scottish landed gentry” and use a clan crest, coat-of-arms and tartan. By “Scottish tradition”, it's claimed, ownership of the plot “legally allows” you, or someone you love, to use the courtesy title of Laird, Lord or Lady and many people will apparently “update their driving licence, credit cards and such like” to reflect their new status. I'd pause here to note that the law of Scotland legally allows you to use the courtesy title “Messiah”, and to update accordingly as much paperwork as you like, for nothing. Leaving that to one side, though, what is the legal truth behind these offers of instant ennoblement?