Staying on top of the latest legislation and being ‘up to speed’ on upcoming laws will help SME owners to avoid litigation.
Three new pieces of legislation, one already in place, and two others pending could have huge implications for company insurance.

From the 27 February any driver caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving will be hit with a £60 fine and three penalty points.
Fleet managers must be prepared, whereas risk managers need to identify the risks involved and decide if these risks are acceptable in their business
Ignoring this new law is effectively asking employees to ‘drive while not in control of the vehicle’.

Companies need to be encouraged to introduce policies limiting work and personal phone use while driving and consider supplying mobile phones that cannot be used whilst a vehicle is in motion. Courier companies, taxi firms and companies that rely on a dedicated network of drivers are particularly at risk.

Recently, the UK government has said it was thinking about extending the right to flexible working to all employees – rather than just those with children under the age of six.

The Guardian newspaper reported at the end of February that women with young children are the most discriminated against at work. This is based on a study on inequality in the UK, which found that a mother with a child aged under 11 years old is 45% less likely to be employed than a man. The study, conducted by the Equalities Review, suggests women are being discriminated at work. Chairman of the review, Trevor Phillips, said inequality still holds back too many individuals from realising their potential.

Therefore, SMEs need to be seen to be doing all they can to comply with any current and future legislation.
In terms of insurance, small business would benefit from a HR consultancy offered by some insurance packages, which will help them to comply with the law and avoid litigation.

Elsewhere, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will soon make a decision on whether the UK Government has to pay substantial compensation to members of pension schemes who have lost all or part of their pensions when their employers became insolvent. 

Even if the Government does not have to pay damages to pensioners for past breaches of European law, the judgment may require the Government to give greater protection to pensions in future, perhaps by increasing the compensation paid to pensioners through the Pension Protection Fund.  
The Advocate General's opinion was that the Government is required by European law to provide full protection of pension rights from the adverse effects of employer insolvency. The AG's opinion is not binding, but is followed by the ECJ in most cases when it gives its formal judgment.