Trade Disputes Act 1965 Redundancy Payments Act 1965
| Author | K. W. Wedderburn |
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01099.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1966 |
JAN.
19@6
STATUTES
58
To conclude. The adverse effects of the tax on the family invest-
ment company,
a
close company with no deductions and taxed
in
addition on its distributions, are plain. Otherwise, each case must
be judged on its merits. In particular, the profit level affects the
amounts
a
company may retain and pay to thc directors as
remuneration.
If
the business is expanding
or
if the level
of
retain-
able profits ‘is reasonable,
a
company may still be
a
better
proposition than
a
partnership, especially if the advantages of
limited liability and the easy transfer of shares are taken into
account
as
well
as
the tax consequences. A major factor is the
higher rate of tax paid by
a
company on its capital gains.
So
it
may
turn out in other cases on the particular circumstances of the indi-
vidual partners regarding personal reliefs and the limited exemptions
available from the capital gains tax,‘ that it
is
advisable to wind up
the company.
It
seems that, at long last, the trend towards com-
panies in the United Kingdom,
so
carefully fostered, may be
reversed in consequence
of
the effects of the corporation tax.
LEONARD LAZAR.
TRADE DISPUTES ACT
1965
REDUNDANCY
PAYMENTS
ACT
1966
ON
August
5,
1005,
two Acts
on
labour law reached the Statute
Book; the one traditional, the other novel.
I.
made Disputes
Act
1906
In
Rookes
v.
Barnard
la
the House
of
Lords introduced
a
new
liability into labour relations by declaring that
a
breach of contract
was
as
“
unlawful
”
as
illegal acts such
as
violence and that
a
threat of it could therefore be actionable
as
(‘
intimidation
”
at the
suit of even
a
third party (intentionally injured). Since,
as
the
Minister of Labour has said:
“
It
now seems likely that the great
majority of strikes, including ofncial strikes, are in breach
of
con-
tract,” protection was needed against this judicial innovation, if
industrial action was not frequently
to
run
a
risk of overstepping
the bounds of legality.
The new statute provides this protection in the traditional
manner in which thc Trade Disputes Act
1906
provided
it
against
the judicial innovations of sixty years ago, and with the same
limitation-i.e., protecting only acts done in contemplation
or
furtherance of
a
trade dispute.”
8
Such an act is not henceforth to
1
The capital gains tax will
be
discussed in a separate note
in,
the
next
issue.
La
[10G4]
A.C.
1120:
see
(1004) 27 M.L.R. 267
for
the background of this
decision.
2
Second reading
of
Bedundsncy
Payments Bill:
71
H.C.Deb.,
col.
63.
See, too,
Evidence
4‘
Ministry
of
Labour
to
Royal Commission
on
Trade Unions
end
Employers Associatiom
(H.M.S.O.
1066).
Memorandum
I1
5
11,
p.
77.
9
On the interpretation
of
this phrase see
(1908)
28
M.L.B.
207.
To continue reading
Request your trial