Ok, so I’m going to do a bit of a teaching blog post by using three recent court cases that have involved Enosis Group Limited and sole traders and how those cases apply to wedding photographers & wedding videographers as well as others in the wedding industry.
Enosis Group Limited used to be based in South Horrington Village, near Wells but now has what looks like a postal address in Bury St Edmunds. Many companies do this to avoid mail being sent to home addresses and to make them look bigger and more important. This information is freely available on Companies House by the way, search for Enosis Group Limited in the search bar and the information is publicly available.
Enosis Group Limited used to run wedding fayres, craft fairs and other events; however, the individuals have now requested for this company to be struck off, and I believe using are using a different company to run events through, Eureka Effect Limited, although I am open to being corrected in this matter. The same individuals running Eureka Effect Limited also walked away from Enosis Group Limited.
So onto the first court case.
Beer vs Enosis Group Limited.
This case was brought against Enosis Group Limited by a small sole trader. Ms Beer made representation to the court for a refund of monies paid to Enosis Group Limited for a craft event that subsequently did not take place. Enosis Group Limited refused based on Clause 9 of their contract, printed below for clarity.
If the show is cancelled for any reason, whether that be within or outside the control of The Enosis Group Limited, The Enosis Group Limited will not be liable for any costs or losses incurred by the Exhibitor. ln addition to this, 100% of the total fee paid / owed for the event by the Exhibitor will be taken towards pre-advertising and administrative costs should a cancellation take place. This clause includes, but is not limited to, cancellation due to weather related issues, pandemics, local and national lockdowns. Any decision to cancel an event by The Enosis Group Limited shall be deemed to be the correct decision (weather related or otherwise). It is the Exhibitors responsibility to obtain their own event cancellation insurance and such insurance is advisable.
As you can see, this clause places ALL the liability onto the trader and indeed goes on to suggest that Enosis Group Limited can make any decision they want to cancel and not give a refund.
Pause!
Enosis Group Limited was shut down, and the Directors requested the company be struck off from Companies House on 11th October 2022. They both resigned as Directors on 24th October 2022. Due to the ongoing litigation and complaints, Companies House has suspended this until 24th January 2024. The same Directors started Eureka Effect Limited and took over the running of the same events that Enosis Group Limited used to run. Eureka Effect Limited was started on 11th August 2022. I’m not 100% sure of contract law regarding changing the name of one company to another and shutting down the older company whilst still using the same TCs as the older company and running the same events as the older company by the same people. This may be perfectly legal, depending on what has gone on financially within Enosis Group Limited.
Updated Eureka Effect Limited Clause 9:
If the show is cancelled outside the control of Eureka Effect Limited, Eureka Effect Limited. will not be liable for any costs or losses incurred by the Client. In addition, the fee
paid for the event by the Client will be used towards advertising and administrative costs should a cancellation occur. This clause includes but is not limited to:
cancellations due to weather-related issues, pandemics, local and national lockdowns. Any decision to cancel an event by Eureka Effect Limited. shall be deemed to be the correct decision (weather-related or otherwise). It is the Client’s responsibility to obtain their own event cancellation insurance, which will indemnify the Client if the
event is cancelled, and such insurance is advisable.
When trading under the Eureka Effect Limited name, they appear to have changed this wording slightly, possibly as a result of the recent court action. In my opinion, that clause is still unfair as are clauses 13 and 14. Please note I’m not a legal professional, nor have I been legally trained. However, the vital aspect is the date when the wording was changed. Those with the wording from Enosis Group Limited contract Clause 9 already have a precedent set by the Judge in the above case, and if you contracted with Eureka Events Limited and have the Enosis Group Limited version of Clause 9, you can easily claim your refund.
Start again!
Back to Enosis Group Limited
In this case, the judge ruled this clause was unlawful and, therefore, unenforceable and that Ms Beer was entitled to her refund. The Judge was also concerned about two other clauses regarding non-refundable deposits/booking fees as described in clauses 13 and 14.
What is interesting to note is that on 28th November 2022, the owners of Enosis Events placed a very long winded post on Meta – click here for that. In that post, they stated that …
“When you create a legal relationship with our company, you agree to be governed by the terms and conditions. As mentioned above, we are in litigation with a handful of people and all the cases that have gone before the court have been judged in our favour. Our contract has gone through rigorous testing and has been deemed legal and fair and it goes beyond the “traditional” no cancellation clause to recommend event cancellation insurance is taken out. These policies are cheap and for around £30 will cover a business for a whole year. Not only do they offer cancellation protection but precipitation cover which extends to loss of earnings. A no brainer for all those experienced businesses.”
I’m not 100% sure of other cases involving Enosis Events, Enosis Group Limited or the Sloans etc however, I would be interested to hear of any case, fully referenced with court case numbers, that rules that Clause 9 of the contract was fair and that the above statement is true. A Contract / TCs are only as good as a court says they are.
Mr Sean Sloan then made an emotional outburst to the court, referencing the clause as being industry standard (which, as far as I’m aware, it is not), and it leaves the doors open to thousands of cases and wanted to appeal. The Judge refused his appeal immediately, and Mr Sloan requested to take his appeal further, which the Judge had to allow. Whether this appeal will go ahead, let alone succeed, is open to interpretation due to an interesting but essential twist.
Neither Mr Sean David Edwind Sloan or Mrs Sarah Sloan were legal officers of the Enosis Group Limited at the time of the court case. They resigned on 24th October 2022 and requested the company be struck off on 14th September 2022, although this was refused, and an extension was given due to a court case being brought against Enosis Group Limited. At the start of this court case, they assured the Judge they would abide by his ruling and pay any compensation should they lose.
This brings into play a different aspect of being self-employed, that of Sole Trader or using a Limited Company. As a Sole Trader, you alone are responsible for all the debts incurred by your company, and that includes court fines such as the one above. As a Limited company, you have limited liability, and if you resign from the company as a Director and request for the company to be struck off…you also seemingly walk away from any debts. I must admit to not having up-to-date knowledge of that aspect of company law, so I may be forgiven if I have made a mistake.
How this affects the Wedding Industry.
We all have, or we should have, contracts / Terms & Conditions. Those contracts should be fair and protect you and the client equally.
You can put what you want into a contract, but it is ONLY when it goes to court, in front of a Judge, that the contents of that contract, its sections, its paragraphs etc can be tested legally. If a clause is unfair, it is unenforceable. And the clauses that are usually deemed unfair centre around payments and refunds, such as in the above case.
In this case, the Competitions and Marketing Authority (CMA) ruled back during Covid that clauses stating no refunds at all were unfair and that only a percentage of money could be kept from refunds that cover the servicing of the contract to date. So if you are a wedding photographer/wedding videographer with a 50% booking fee/deposit and refuse to refund part of it, look out.
Second Case
Burke vs Enosis Group Limited
This case centred around pre-contract issues and whether statements made by Enosis Group Limited during pre-booking emails were misrepresenting of an event.
Mr Burke saw Enosis Group Limited advertising craft fayres and emailed for more information. He received several emails back, one notable making the statement that the footfall would be in the region of 1,000 – 1,500 and that it would also be advertised in a local magazine/paper based in Filton, Bristol. This was close to where the event was taking place. They also stated they would leaflet the local area. On this basis, he booked – who wouldn’t when a guaranteed footfall of up to 1,500 people is stated, local paper adverts and leaflet dropping?
It turned out that the fair was a bit of a flop, and nowhere close to that many people turned up, leaving Mr Burke, and many others, feeling let down. Mr Burke decided to seek advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau, which recommended court action based on the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
This act has three areas where communications pre-contract may be considered misrepresentation, “fraudulent”, “negligent” and “innocent misrepresentations” (oops – it was a genuine mistake).
This was a quicker case than possibly could have been; however, the start was delayed by around 30 minutes due to the absence of Mr Sean David Edwin Sloan and Mrs Sarah Sloan, who should have been representing Enosis Group Limited. They didn’t turn up and didn’t let the court know they wouldn’t be there either. As seen in the above court case, though, neither Mr Sean David Edwin Sloan nor Mrs Sarah Sloan was legally entitled to represent Enosis Group Limited, so maybe they thought they didn’t need to turn up.
In her summing, the Judge ruled against Enosis Group Ltd and awarded Mr Burke his fee back, plus costs plus interest. How Mr Burke gets that money back from Enosis Group Limited is open to debate as it doesn’t have any legal officers representing it. I will leave it to the reader’s speculation as to whether the resignations were a deliberate attempt to avoid losing litigation and pay out the money claims in the above cases and the various cases currently going through the litigation process.
That they did not turn up and did not inform the court is, as far as I’m concerned, a huge waste of taxpayers time, money and valuable resources. Not to mention highly disrespectful to the court itself.
How this affects the Wedding Industry.
What you say on your website and in your marketing/advertising can directly impact people booking you. If what you say is not the truth, you leave yourself open.
e.g.
As a wedding photographer, you attend a portfolio day. On the portfolio day, the instructor does everything for you, from placing the light stands, setting the flash power, telling you the settings, directing the couple in poses etc. All you do is push the shutter button.
You then use those images on your website and mark them up as being from a real wedding. You get booked by a couple based on those images, and at their wedding, you fail to replicate those images. If the couple subsequently finds out that the images you displayed were not from a real wedding and that only pushed the shutter, you have, in all probabilities, negligently misrepresented yourself. And that means the contract reverts to non-existent and you either pay the full fee back or risk court and the subsequent reputational damage. that may entail.
Another example.
You attend a portfolio day based around a scenario of two people having a small elopement-type wedding. You are with a trainer and several other people. The couple are great and directs themselves or with input from the trainer. You, however, decide to blog, using those images, about the fantastic elopement wedding you just photographed. It is made even worse if it was suggested you could do this by the trainer. And yes, I’ve watched a YouTube video using this example, where the trainer suggested this very thing. Only it wasn’t an elopement wedding was it? It was a portfolio shoot. Same issue as above.
Another example.
As a florist, you tell people all your flowers are collected fresh on the day from the warehouse, but you collect them two days before. The flowers wilt/die the morning of the wedding. Yet the couple booked you for the exact reason that their flowers would be fresh on the day.
Be careful of what you say pre-contract in your emails, your adverts, your marketing, your websites etc that are aimed at people booking you. It’s all pre-contract stuff that, if it isn’t true, can lead to you being taken to court.
Enosis Group Limited vs Redmond
Third Case
This was a slightly different case, with the defendant (Ms Redmond) being taken to court by Enosis Group Limited (Mr Sean David Edwin Sloan and Mrs Sarah Sloan were, at the time of starting the case, not even directors of the company, having resigned. See above for those details.)
Ms Redmond has never previously attended a fayre, and several days before, she realised that Enosis Group Ltd had not been advertising her business as they stated she would. This information was sent pre-booking, so again the Misrepresentation Act 1967 possibly comes into play. What also comes into play is potentially a deliberate sales process designed to “puff up” the sales copy pre-booking so that unsuspecting individuals book based on a series of false and misleading statements. They then rely on their contract to refuse refunds (as we know, Clause 9 of their contract is unfair and unenforceable), a defence that Mrs Sarah Sloan tried to rely on again.
Ms Redmond had paid by debit card for the fayre on or around 16th May 2022, and she contacted her bank, who instigated a chargeback on or around 29th October 2022. It is important to remember that on 27th September 2022, the then Directors, Mr Sean David Edwin Sloan and Mrs Sarah Sloan, requested via Companies House for Eosis Group Ltd to be struck off. This was challenged and suspended on 11th October 2022, and they both resigned as directors. 21st October 2022.
On 25th November 2022, the bank fully refunded the chargeback to Ms Redmond, as Enosis Group Limited had provided no evidence to the bank to defend the chargeback.
Bear in mind they started legal proceedings as Enosis Group Limited on 24th April 2023, 6 months after resigning and 7 months after requesting the company be struck off. As Mr David Ediwn Sloan is allegedly a business mentor, and has several limited companies to his name, it beggars belief that he did not know enough about company law to realise all of this.
In her defence of this claim, Mrs Sarah Sloan stated the refund was allowed to go through unchallenged. “This only came to light after the case was closed and no evidence submitted. This is due to being unaware that a chargeback had been brought.”
The chargeback was submitted on 29th October 2022 and allowed on 25th November 2022, but Mrs Sarah Sloan only noticed that the money could not be accounted for until April 2023. As a self-employed business owner of 20 years, I “do” my accounts every month, and I track my incoming and outgoing into my bank account every month as part of that process.
How, therefore, could a Director not realise that a not inconsequential sum of money be taken from their bank account until after 6 months? Although Enosis Group Limited has debts of circa £17k and their current company Eureka Effect Limited has published debts of circa £3k at its last published statement on Companies House, it is possible that financial management isn’t a strong point of the directors.
The case date was set for Port Talbot, South Wales, on 14th August 2023; however, as of 18th July 2023, the court fee had not been paid by Enosis Events Ltd and thus was thrown out.
As in the previous case, this was a colossal waste of time and expense for the taxpayer, not to mention the time and expense Ms Redmond has gone to prepare her case.
How this affects the Wedding Industry.
Chargebacks for Debit Cards and Credit Cards are well known. They are available up to 120 days after purchase and have no value limitation.
This means that if a customer is unhappy and you do not resolve, or worse, have no formal or informal complaint process, and the customer paid by either debit card or credit card; you are open to having that chargeback levied against you.
You MUST check your bank accounts/accounting software at least once per week and ensure your accounts are kept up to date to avoid missing money from your bank account via chargeback. it’s also good financial security to ensure you have not been hacked!
Additionally, as with the above, you MUST ensure you run an open, honest and transparent business. Don’t have a trading name (or in the case of Enosis Group Ltd, multiple trading names) linked to one limited company; it confuses people.
You can put whatever you want in a contract – if a judge rules a clause/section is unfair, then that clause/section is unenforceable.
Summary
Mr David Edwin Sloan and Mrs Sarah Sloan, previous Directors of Enosis Group Limited, thought they were secure due to a clause in their contract.
They assumed a judge would rule in their favour due to this clause.
After seeing them both in court, I would suggest they took little to zero formal legal advice suggesting a large does arrogance on their behalf. Their bundles of evidence to the courts suggest, “send as much crap as we can, and maybe the judge won’t read it all and think we are the better and bigger company.” It is with high regard that I hold the Judicial system in this country, especially at the lower courts. The judges are experienced at filtering out bovine excrement and quickly getting to the nub of an issue.
In the first court case, they lost and realised they possibly had a significant financial liability due to that precedent. They threatened to appeal, but that was possibly boisterous bluffing and ignorance on their part of how contract law in England and Wales works. They can’t appeal as to do so, they would need to make themselves officers of the company (Directors), and that would then hold the company liable for any debts arising from other court cases.
In the second case, they realised that as they were not legal officers of Enosis Events Limited, they didn’t have to turn up anyway. Regardless of win or lose, they knew no monies could be gotten from the company.
In the third case, they realised that if they didn’t pay the court fee, then no case could be heard against them, possibly due to not being legal officers of the company.
Update
Companies House has recently refused for Enosis Group Limited to be struck off and has delayed this until January 2024, allowing for further claims against the company. I believe this is the third time (possibly the second) that an extension has been given, and I’m sure Companies House wouldn’t do this lightly.
Additionally, there appears to be some contradiction in witness statements that have been presented as evidence bundles by Enosis Group Limited (Mr David Edwin Sloand and Mrs Sarah Sloan), in that an individual named as providing an evidence statement and signing to that effect either didn’t write the statement or in another case, not only didn’t write the statement, they didn’t know of the company or the individual the statement was about. If this is true there, and the cases went to court, there is a strong possibility for contempt of court proceedings against those that provided the false witness statements.
Should you continue to trade with Enosis Group Limited or Eureka Effect Limited?
That is entirely down to you. However, some traders/exhibitors seemingly have had a great time and have found the events to be a good value for money. Events are only good value for money if you make in sales the cost of the fayre at a minimum and cover your Return on Investment (RoI).
Many smaller traders do not know what RoI means, so let me explain.
A Return on Investment isn’t just the fee for the event. It is the sum of everything, all the costs you incur to exhibit. That includes your time, the products/ samples on display, the costs of fuel to get there, the cost (apportioned) of the vehicle insurance, public indemnity & professional liability etc.
So if the fee for an event is £50 and your additional costs are £150, your RoI figure is a minimum of £200. My RoI on the extensive wedding fayres I attend is in the several thousands of pounds in bookings.
However you decide, you still have rights under a variety of legislation should you not be happy with the event for any number of reasons:
Misleading Marketing Information 2008
Clauses 9, 13 and 14 of the contract they use
0 Comments