Incident: Sick Kids physician loses portable hard-drive with unencrypted personal health information

A physician from Sick Kids hospital who decided to travel with a portable hard-drive containing unencrypted health information on 3,300 patients lost the drive in Canada's busiest airport. This happened six weeks after the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered that the hospital not allow electronic health information to leave the hospital unless it was encrypted. See: TheStar.com - living - Sick Kids doctor loses data on 3,300 patients.

Tenancy deposit roundup

A few matters on the subject of tenancy deposit protection which I have been meaning to comment on for a while.

The August issue of Legal Action Magazine has two cases on tenancy deposit claims, which go to support tenants claiming against landlords who breach the tenancy deposit regulations. If you want to read the full stories, this is set out in Nearly Legal. However just to summarise:

Woods v.Harrington
This case involved a landlord who protected the deposit so late it was after the tenancy agreement had ended. The Judge held that was 'not only contrary to the letter of the law but is contrary to the spirit of the law and the public policy considerations that Parliament was seeking'. The landlord lost and was ordered to pay the penalty fine of three times the deposit sum for being in breach of the tenancy deposit regulations.

Delicate v. Sandberg
Here the landlord served the s21 notice before the deposit was protected. However notwithstanding this, in the absence of the tenant in prison, they obtained an order for possession and possession of the property via the bailiffs. On being released from prison, the tenant re-entered. The Landlords applied for an order for restitution, but the Court held that the section 21 notice had been invalid, the possession order should be set aside.

The swarb forum
My client Alan (you know who you are) has also drawn my attention to two interesting posts on the www.swarb.co.uk forum:

1. This one says that a tenancy deposit case it to be taken to the Court of Appeal, funded by one of the landlords associations. If anyone has any more information about this, please leave a comment.

2. This one is an interesting post looking at the complexities of the TDPS legislation, pointing out that the wording appears to provide for the landlord to escape the penalty by paying the deposit at any time before the court hearing, and also discussing whether the legislation can apply to former tenants as well as current ones.

I will be doing a presentation on tenancy deposits for my talk for Professional Conferences in December, so would welcome any information readers may have about new cases and developments.

(Note - you can read all my other posts on tenancy deposits here)

UK: FRC consultation - Guidance for Directors of Listed Companies on Going Concern and Financial Reporting

Listing Rule 9.8.6 requires listed companies incorporated in the UK to provide in their annual report "a statement made by the directors that the business is a going concern, together with supporting assumptions or qualifications as necessary, that has been prepared in accordance with Going Concern and Financial Reporting: Guidance for Directors of listed companies registered in the United Kingdom, published in November 1994".

The 1994 Guidance is now the subject of review: the Financial Reporting Council has published a consultation paper in which it states:

The Guidance for Directors was written by a Working Group formed under the auspices of the Cadbury Committee that reported on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. The formation of the Working Group arose out of concerns that there had been several high‐profile company failures where there had been no apparent indication of the imminent problems in the previous year’s report and accounts.

The objective of the Guidance for Directors is to support good corporate reporting and, in particular, the requirements of the Listing Rules and Accounting Standards. When a company is not a going concern this does not necessarily mean that it is, or is likely to become, insolvent. The Guidance for Directors is not intended to address aspects of insolvency and, in particular, is not intended to support the requirements of the Insolvency Act 1986.

In the period since 1994 there have been substantial changes to the accounting standards applied by directors of listed companies. This is particularly the case for directors preparing consolidated accounts required to comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) as adopted by the EU.

The FRC observes that current economic conditions are creating particular challenges for companies. Recent developments in global debt markets have led banks to be cautious of lending to one another (the so‐called “credit crunch”). This has severely restricted liquidity which has created unexpected financial difficulties for banks and entities that depend on the availability of loans as a key source of capital. Many market commentators are now forecasting a period of reduced growth and in some cases recession, with the result that going concern questions are likely to need to be considered in more detail by Boards of Directors.

In view of these deteriorating economic conditions the FRC has concluded that this is an appropriate time to consider whether the existing Guidance for Directors is necessary and remains appropriate, or whether it can be improved.

Note: The UK's Combined Code on Corporate Governance (June 2008) provides in Section C ("Accountability and Audit") the following provision (C.1.2): "The directors should report that the business is a going concern, with supporting assumptions or qualifications as necessary".

Postscript (2 Sep 2008): For further comment see this short article in the Financial Times newspaper. 

Not just the policemen

Property investors get younger and younger. Now 17 year old Luke Clarke is on the brink of what looks almost certain to be a sucessful property investment career, as he prepares to complete on his first property purchase at the age of 18 - see Rosie Millard's Tales of a landlady column in The Times on August 6th.

Although if you ask me, young Clarke probably has a lot to thank his letting agent step dad, Terry Lucking (who runs the Peterborough branch of Belvoir Lettings), for. Terry not only gave him a job and the opportunity to learn the business and earn his deposit, he also bought the property on his behalf so he can convey it to Luke on his birthday. Not all step dads are bad.

But there is no doubt that in turn Luke has been, is, and will undoubtedly be an enormous asset to the Belvoir letting business. Well done Luke, and may this property be the first of many!

Pigeon problems

In some towns pigeons are such a problem that feeding them is punishable by eviction from your home! So says this report from the Norwich Evening News. ASBOs are also threatened against those anti-social tenants who persist in feeding the birds. Indeed apparently in Bristol, 63-year-old Graham Branfield was given an indefinite anti social behaviour order for feeding birds in his back garden and now faces up to five years in prison if he breaches the order by feeding pigeons or any other animals.

However I very much doubt whether any tenants will actually be evicted, plus any possession order made on this basis would almost certainly be subject to appeal. Although the reported case in the Law Reports would make very interesting reading, and the tenant would achieve lasting fame by having his case cited in almost all property law text books.

India: company law reform moves a step closer - Companies Bill 2008 approved by Cabinet

In 2005 the Irani Report, on the reform of India's company law, was published. Legislation to replace the Companies Act 1956 has been expected for some time. Its introduction has moved a step closer: today it was announced that the Companies Bill 2008 has been approved by the Union Cabinet and will be introduced in Parliament in October. 

The Government's announcement contains an overview of the purpose of the Bill: to provide the principles for the internal governance of companies and a framework for their regulation, administered by Central Government, but with a much greater role for shareholders.  Specific proposals include:

• The introduction of a new entity, the "one-person company".
  
• The abolition of shares with differential voting rights.
  
• Provision for the duties and liabilities of directors, with every company to have at least one director resident in India.
  
• At least one third of board directors to be independent [it's not yet clear to which companies this rule will apply; the Irani Committee proposed that is should apply to public listed companies and those taking deposits from the public]. 
  
• Insider trading by directors to be recognised as a criminal offence.
  
• Auditors' rights and duties to be explained.
  
• Class action suits by shareholder associations to be permitted.
  

UK: England and Wales: auditors' liability and the ex turpi causa principle [a belated posting]

Several months ago the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone & Rolls Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 644 and it would appear from recent reports in the legal press that an appeal to the House of Lords will be made. The case required the Court of Appeal to consider the operation of the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle (no cause of action may be founded on an illegal act) in the context of a negligence claim brought by the liquidators of a company (Stone & Rolls) against a company's auditors (Moore Stephens). 

The liquidators argued that the auditors had failed, during the course of several audits, to identify the fraud of Mr. Stojevic (the directing mind and will of the company). Mr. Stojevic fraudulently obtained, through the company, money from various banks. One of these banks sued the company and Mr. Stojevic and was awarded damages against Mr. Stojevic and the company. The company was unable to pay and entered liquidation. The auditors denied negligence and applied for the action to be struck out on the basis that the claim was barred by the ex turpi causa principle. The first instance judge declined to strike out the claim (see [2007] EWHC 1826 (Comm)). 

The Court of Appeal held that the liquidators' claim was barred by the ex turpi causa principle and struck out the claim. The court rejected the argument that the company was the victim of fraud and attributed Mr. Stojevic's actions to the company. There was not, the court unanimously agreed, any room for discretion in the application of the ex turpi causa principle because, as Lord Goff observed in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] AC 340 at 355B: "...the principle is not a principle of justice; it is a principle of policy, whose application is indiscriminate and so can lead to unfair consequences as between the parties to litigation. Moreover the principle allows no room for the exercise of any discretion by the court in favour of one party or the other".  The court also rejected the argument that the ex turpi causa principle did not apply where the claim was based on the commission of a fraud where the prevention of that fraud was "the very thing" that the defendants had undertaken to do. In this regard, Rimer LJ observed (at para. [109]):

There is ... no support in the authorities that we were shown for the proposition that if "the very thing" from which the defendant owed a duty to save the claimant harmless is, or includes, the commission of a criminal offence, the public policy defence based on the ex turpi causa principle will be overridden so as to enable the bringing of the claim that relies on the claimant's illegality".

Note: The case has been reported here in the Law Society Gazette.

Postscript (2 Sep 2008): The House of Lords Judicial Office informs me: "[the] petition for leave was presented on 18 July 2008 ... and we would hope to get a decision on leave before the end of November this year".