|
Quick Links
|
Visit Our Archive for previous newsletters covering Hospitality, Recruitment, Intellectual Property, Food & Drink, Commercial Property, Employment, Hotels, Restaurants, Start Ups and many other topics
|
 |
|
Find Previous Featured Articles
| 
March 2012
Marketing
February 2012
International Services
January 2012
Contract Law
December 2011
November 2011
Recruitment
October 2011
Intellectual Property Update
September 2011
Commercial Disputes
July/August 2011
Holidays, Gym Memberships, Nights Out
June 2011
Social Media and Comparative Advertising
Visit Our Archive for previous newsletters covering Hospitality, Recruitment, Intellectual Property, Food & Drink, Commercial Property, Employment, Hotels, Restaurants, Start Ups and many other topics
|
|
Quick Links
|
Visit Our Archive for previous newsletters covering Hospitality, Recruitment, Intellectual Property, Food & Drink, Commercial Property, Employment, Hotels, Restaurants, Start Ups and many other topics
|
|
|
|
Dear Subscriber,
Welcome to our April newsletter.
The theme of our newsletter this month is "Hotels" and we have two specific updates relevant to the industry.
At Fortune Law, we act for a number of hotel clients and advise them on all aspects of their business, whether specific transactions, one-off requirements or ongoing legal support on day-to-day issues. We can assist with acquisitions and disposals of hotels, refinancing and restructuring, employment and contract law issues, brand protection, disputes with guests and suppliers, and all property related matters.
This month, we have the following articles:
- Case Law update: hotel's direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation decided by the Court of Appeal;
- Hotel industry update: Grosvenor and Derwent join forces to redevelop landmark West End site;
- Back to basics: what is misrepresentation?
Our featured client this month is iHotels Alliance, a consortium of Ismaili hoteliers who have grouped together to secure preferential supplier rates and rebates and share knowledge and knowhow. Fortune Law handled the incorporation of the Alliance and advised on and put in place the necessary constitutional documentation, supplier and confidentiality agreements.
If you have any legal queries or need advice or assistance in relation to your hotel business or any other business venture, do not hesitate to call us on 0207 440 2540 or e-mail us at info@fortunelaw.com. We are always happy to help.
Further information
Fortune Law provides businesses with "a one stop shop" service dealing with commercial property, commercial litigation, employment, international, corporate and commercial law. |
|
Shainul Kassam
Fortune Law Solicitors |
Featured Client  | | Nashir Boghani of iHotels Alliance Limited |
www.ihotelsalliance.com 
"Fortune Law advised the Alliance on its shareholder and membership structure, drafted the constitutional and membership documentation, advised on confidentiality obligations relating to our suppliers and prepared a supplier agreement to set competitive member prices and secure rebates - the Alliance has therefore experienced the firm's services first hand. Shainul and her team are highly professional, very knowledgeable, responsive, and a real pleasure to work with. They have provided the Alliance quality service and have played an important role in helping us get launched - we look forward to using them again. Indeed, Fortune Law is one of our approved suppliers."
|
|
Case Law Update: Court Of Appeal's Decision On Hotel's Direct Discrimination On Grounds Of Sexual Orientation
A recent interesting legal development revolved around the right of a hotel owner to choose the profile of his/her guests. In this case which was decided by the Court of Appeal, Mr and Mrs Bull ran a guest house in Cornwall letting single-bedded and twin-bedded rooms. They had said that they were practicing Christians and viewed the guest house as their home. They had operated a policy that only married couples could share a double bedded room. In fact their booking form explicitly stated:
"Here at Chymorva we have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only - thank you."
Mr Preddy and Mr Hall, who were civil partners, made their booking over the telephone and did not see the notice. When they arrived at the hotel they were informed of the policy. No twin rooms were available and the couple had to seek alternative accommodation. They believed they should be entitled to be treated the same way as a married couple and be able to book a double room. They believed that they were refused the booking because they were gay.
They took their case to the county court. The court considered whether the guesthouse's policy would amount to discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1263) (Regulations).
Regulation 3(1) provides that generally a person, "A", discriminates against another, "B", if, on the grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others. Regulation 3(4) states that the fact that one of the persons (whether or not B) is a civil partner while the other is married shall not be treated as a material difference in the relevant circumstances. The court also considered the extent to which the Regulations limited the hotel owners' own religious beliefs.
The hotel owners denied direct or indirect discrimination, claiming that the restriction was not based on sexual orientation but instead on their belief that sex outside heterosexual marriage was sinful. The restriction applied equally to unmarried heterosexual couples. They also argued that if they had discriminated, they were justified in doing so by their right to manifest their religion under the European Convention on Human Rights.
At county court level, it was decided that Mr Preddy and Mr Hall had suffered direct discrimination and were awarded damages for injury to feelings in the sum of £1,800 each.
Mr and Mrs Bull appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the county court decision.
The Court said that only heterosexual married couples could comply with the precondition that double rooms would be available to married couples only. The reason for this was that gay couples could not "marry" in law. In conclusion, the hotel directly discriminated against homosexual couples. The Court of Appeal stated that if the hoteliers chose to run a business, they had to run it in compliance with the law. They had a right to manifest their religion but not in a commercial context.
Bull and another v Hall and another [2012] EWCA Civ 83
If you would like advice on the Equality Act 2010, whether in an employment law or any other context, please get in touch with us at enquiries@fortunelaw.com or on 020 7440 2540.
|
|
Hotel Industry Update: Grosvenor And Derwent Join Forces To Redevelop Landmark West End Site
Grosvenor and Derwent London plc have announced the establishment of a joint venture to carry out the redevelopment of a landmark West End site: 1-5 Grosvenor Place, London SW1.
Grosvenor owns the freehold of the land which was held by Derwent London under leases due to expire in 2063 and 2084. These leases have been restructured into 150-year leases at a ground rent of 5% rental income. Simultaneously, Grosvenor has bought 50% of Derwent London for £60million.
The existing properties on the 1.5-acre site at Hyde Park Corner currently contain over 168,000 square feet of office space with potential for increase and the redevelopment will include a luxury hotel, office and residential uses.
The parties are currently in the process of selecting an architect to draw up detailed plans for the site. Subject to planning permission, the redevelopment could commence in 2014.
At Fortune Law, we can assist and advise on the establishment of joint venture and preparation of joint venture agreements, whether for hotels or any other businesses. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with us at enquiries@fortunelaw.com or call us on 020 7440 2540.
|
|
Back To Basics: What Is Misrepresentation?
This month, we continue our theme on the basics of Contract Law with an article on misrepresentation. Businesses enter into contracts on a daily basis, and this is a term you should be aware of.
In our February newsletter, we described the different types of contractual term. Of course, some statements that are made in the course of business are not actually terms which are incorporated into a contract. They might also be:
1. A sales puff to exaggerate product virtues, such as "the best product for you", which cannot be a misrepresentation;
2. An opinion, which cannot amount to misrepresentation unless it is a statement of fact made without reasonable belief in its truth;
3. A statement of belief or intention which cannot amount to a misrepresentation unless it is a wilful lie;
4. A statement of law, which can be a misrepresentation;
5. A representation, being a statement intended to induce the other party to enter into the contract.
A misrepresentation is therefore a false statement of fact or law made by one party to another which induces the other party to enter into a contract and ultimately causes that party loss.
Inducement
Once a statement is confirmed as a representation, it must be shown that it was made to the other party who then relied upon it, i.e. inducement. The statement must be the actual inducement; it need not be the only inducement but (save in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation) the party must be materially influenced by the misrepresentation.
If the claimant has the opportunity to discover the truth, this does not prevent the statement from being a misrepresentation. However, a misrepresentation claim may be defeated if it can be shown that the representation was substantially correct, rather than entirely correct.
Types of misrepresentation
There are three types of misrepresentation:
1. Fraudulent: (based on the tort of deceit): where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth;
2. Negligent: where a statement is made without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. The test is an objective one;
3. Innocent: where a misrepresentation made entirely without fault, i.e. where the maker can show that it had reasonable grounds to believe its statement was true.
The specific remedies available for misrepresentation will depend on the type.
Minimising your liability for misrepresentation
The moral of the story is that you should take care when making statements in pre-contractual negotiations. You can, however, take steps to limit your liability if a false statement is made and relied upon:
1. Use exclusion and limitation of liability clauses to do just that.
2. Include wording to exclude liability for misrepresentation.
3. Use a non-reliance clause so that the other party confirms it has not relied upon any statement which is not contained in the contract itself.
Be aware, however, that a clause attempting to limit or exclude liability for misrepresentation must satisfy the test of reasonableness to be enforceable.
See last month's newsletter for more information on the lawfulness of exclusion clauses.
Whether you are putting together a set of terms and conditions for clients, suppliers, for website use or a contract for a specific transaction or relationship, Fortune Law has the necessary expertise to advise and assist you with all aspects of Contract Law. Please get in touch by telephone on 020 7440 2540 or by e-mail at enquiries@fortunelaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
