Member News

Barry has spent most of his professional career at a top financial services company and a claims management company, where he gained a wealth of experience in a number of senior positions across general insurance; from operations, project management, risk and governance through to claims, strategy and business development.

At Leathes Prior Barry will work alongside the partners to help devise, develop and deliver a comprehensive marketing strategy for business development and awareness-raising for the firm’s existing services on a local and national basis.

Barry comments: “I am thrilled to be joining such an established, market-leading and innovative law firm. The opportunities that we have to develop and shape our business to meet the needs of our existing and future clients is very exciting and I am looking forward to being part of the team.”

Mike Barlow, Managing Partner comments: “Having worked alongside Barry in the past I am delighted he has decided to join our team and I have no doubt that his talents will prove invaluable in helping us realise our plans for the future.”

Our latest article is out and examines why and how to plan for driving customers to your website. Too many companies think about this AFTER their new website has gone live and we show you why it needs to be done BEFORE you design your website. We also look at the different tactics you can use to drive traffic to your website and some examples. Please take a look, as we know you will find it useful. As always, your feedback is most welcome.

Click here to see our “How to drive relevant traffic to your website” article.

A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a redundancy dismissal without any prior warning or consultation was not unfair. Employment Principal Lorna Townsend and Trainee Solicitor Laura Tanguay report.

The facts

The Claimant in this case had been employed by the Respondent company as the Head of Human Resources and Payroll and was known by the title of Associate Director.

Following the economic downtown, the Respondent’s revenue was significantly reduced and fundamental changes were consequently implemented across the entire business. As part of the restructuring, a new and more senior role of HR Director was created and offered to another individual, who had a Masters Degree in Management Development and 20 years of experience in senior HR roles. There was no advertisement of the vacancy; the Claimant was not told of or interviewed for the position.

The Respondent decided that the Payroll Manager could absorb the Claimant’s payroll responsibilities, and other company administrative tasks for which the Claimant had responsibility could be undertaken by the Legal and Operations Director. Consequently, the Claimant’s role was redundant and he was therefore dismissed on grounds of redundancy without warning or consultation. The Claimant issued a claim for unfair dismissal.

The ET decision

At the employment tribunal, the Claimant argued that his employer should have consulted with him and that he should have been appointed to, or at the very least interviewed and considered for, the new HR Director role. At the hearing, the tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, holding that, “consultation with the claimant would serve little purpose and would have been a sham which would not have been to the claimant’s benefit”.

The Claimant appealed to the EAT.

The EAT decision

The EAT dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. It agreed with the ET that in this instance it would have been futile to have consulted with the Claimant, with the EAT noting that, “this was, in truth, a case far from the ordinary case of redundancy selection; it concerned a manager in a very senior post which was being lost due to a substantial reorganisation”.

The dismissal was therefore fair, despite the company having not warned or consulted with the Claimant.

Comment

This case illustrates that, in some (limited) circumstances, it may not be necessary or appropriate to consult with an employee facing redundancy where that consultation process would be futile, particularly if the employee is very senior. However, this decision should be approached with caution as in the majority of cases it will still be advisable for employers to properly consult with employees, in order to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal.

A copy of the EAT judgment is available here.

The latest in a series of fundraising initiatives by Norwich based insurance brokers Hugh J Boswell has resulted in a cheque for more than £7,000 being handed over to the East Anglian Air Ambulance this week.

On the last weekend of September 2012, staff from Hugh J Boswell hosted a networking dinner at The Waterside Rollesby where thanks to the support of local businesses, the event raised over £2,500.

Two days later Hugh J Boswell, along with fellow Norwich based law firm Howes Percival LLP, entered a team of 27 runners into the East Anglian Air Ambulance Runway Run. Following the event, the months of training and intense fundraising paid off when the team was awarded the prize for largest event fundraiser.

In total, Hugh J Boswell raised £7,336 over the weekend, in addition to the £6500 already raised in the last year since the firm started its three-year commitment to raise £20,000 for the air ambulance charity.

Peter Foster, Director, Hugh J Boswell said: “We’re all thoroughly enjoying our three-year commitment to raising these funds for such a worthwhile charity, which we feel passionate about supporting”.

The Government has launched a web app, called “Sorting out Separation”, which offers parents advice and shows where they can access further support. It is, claims the government, a “one-stop-shop for any parent going through a separation”. Emma Alfieri reports.

The Department for Work & Pensions press release details a YouGov poll out today (commissioned by the DWP) which found that 300,000 families experience separation every year. The poll also found that around five million parents have gone through separation and further that over four million children now live in separated families – which is, it states, equal to a third of children in Britain.

Work and Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, said “The app covers everything from how to avoid a separation to coping with the emotional impact of breaking up, accessing legal or housing support and arranging child maintenance. The Department for Work and Pensions worked closely with the Department for Education and Ministry of Justice in developing the new service, in conjunction with the voluntary and community sector. It forms part of a £20m fund announced earlier this year to help support separating parents”.

Emma Alfieri from our family law team comments: “This app has no doubt been developed in light that legal aid funding for most family law cases will come to end in April next year. Whilst the app will be an informative tool for parents, it is certainly no substitute for taking specialist legal advice, which is always recommended on separation”.

For further help with family law matters please contact our family law team.

Steeles Law Head of Planning & Environment David Merson looks at the Coalition’s proposals to amend the permitted development regime to extend development rights for homeowners and businesses without having to apply for planning permission.

As previously reported the Coalition is planning to make a number of changes to the planning regime in order to reduce bureaucracy, speed up the process, reduce cost and contribute to the drive towards growth as part of its concerted economic stimulation package.

As part of that process, proposed changes to the permitted development regime were announced but until now we had not seen the detail of the proposals. That is no longer the case with the publication (12th November 2012) of the associated consultation document.

The gist of the proposed changes is set out below.

Residential

The proposal is that in non-protected areas (see below) the current position that single-storey rear extensions with a depth beyond the rear wall of 4m for a detached house, and 3m for any other type of house, are permitted subject to various limitations should be increased to 8m for a detached house, and 6m for any other type of house. This would also cover conservatories at the rear of properties.

No changes are proposed for flats and extensions of more than one storey and all other current limitations and conditions remain the same e.g.:

• Development can only cover up to 50% of the curtilage of the house;
• Single-storey extensions must not exceed 4m in height;
• Extensions with eaves higher than 3m must not be within 2m of the boundary;
• Building regulations, Party Wall Act requirements and the ‘right to light’ continue to apply; and
• NPPF policies on ‘garden-grabbing’ remain in force

These proposals do not permit separate outbuildings for residential accommodation (beds in sheds), or for the creation of separate residential units although the Coalition recognises that garages conversions can provide a valuable source of extra space, and wherever possible, families should be able to adapt them to meet their changing needs.

Retail

The proposal is that for shops and financial / professional services establishments outside of protected areas (see below), the current limits permitting extensions by up to 50m², provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, should be raised to 100m² and 50% respectively including the right to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property, when the requirement to leave a 2m gap along the boundary would remain.

Other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and existing protections under other regimes will continue to apply e.g.:

• The height of the building as extended must not exceed 4m; or
• The development must not consist of changes to a shop front, or extensions beyond a shop front.

Offices

The proposal is that for offices outside of protected areas (see below), the current limit on extensions of up to 50m², provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%, should be raised to 100m² and 50% respectively.

Other limitations and conditions would remain the same, and protections under other regimes will continue to apply e.g.:

• Buildings within 10m of the boundary must not be more than 5m high;
• In other cases the extension cannot exceed the height of the existing building; and
• New extensions must not be within 5m of the boundary.

Industrial

At present, new industrial buildings or warehouses which are up to 100m² in size can be built within the curtilage of an existing industrial building or warehouse in a non-protected area, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 25%.

The proposal is that outside of protected areas (see below), these limits should be raised to 200m² and 50% respectively.

The other current limitations and conditions would remain the same, and existing protections under other regimes will continue to apply e.g.:

• Buildings within 10m of the boundary must not be more than 5m high;
• There must be no building within 5m of the boundary; and
• There must be no reduction in the space available for parking or turning of vehicles.

Time limit

These proposed changes should be in place for a period of three years, starting from the date at which the secondary legislation implementing these changes comes into force.

It is also proposed that developments will have to be completed by the end of the three-year period.

There will be a notification requirement and homeowners and businesses wishing to exercise their rights under these changes will be required to notify the local planning authority on completion of the development. Where this notification is not received by the end of the three-year period, the development will not count as permitted development, and could be subject to enforcement action.

Protected areas

The proposed changes will not apply to protected areas or ‘article 1(5) land’ which are in essence National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation areas, World Heritage Sites and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Similar protection will be retained for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

Telecommunications

At present, Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order provides that fixed broadband apparatus such as cabinets, telegraph poles, and overhead lines have permitted development rights subject to a prior approval process on ‘article 1(5) land’. This allows local planning authorities to consider the siting and appearance of communications apparatus before development commences.

The proposal is to remove this prior approval requirement as it applies to article 1(5) land for a period of five years provided that all works are completed by the end of that period although the prior approval requirement will, for obvious reasons, continue to apply in respect of SSSIs.

Comment

While the vast majority of the proposals are likely to be welcomed, at least by those looking to implement development proposals that might previously have required planning permission but no longer do so, one cannot help wondering what the proposals are going to do for neighbourly relations where the opportunity to comment on a proposal in advance of its implementation is no longer available. It is also anticipated that the telecommunications proposal is going to give rise to considerable comment and vigorous debate given the various conflicting interest groups.

Consultation

The current consultation began on 12th November and runs for a six week period closing on the 24th December 2012.

Thereafter, there will no doubt be a period of reflection on the consultation responses before the final proposal is published in the form of a Statutory Instrument amending the General Permitted Development Order.

That being the case, it is advisable to await publication thereof before embarking on any such development proposal.

Full details of the proposals and consultation can be found here.

If you require further information or advice on any issues raised in this article or any other planning & environmental matter please contact David Merson on 020 7421 1720 or dmerson@steeleslaw.co.uk.

London, November 26, 2012 – Two senior professionals from the Norwich office of Intellectual Property (IP) consultancy Novagraaf have been recognised for their expertise in diverse IP fields. The work of European Trademark Attorney Susan Wall was recommended along with Novagraaf UK in the 2013 edition of the Legal500, while European and UK Patent Attorney Dr Oliver Harris has been elected as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA). Novagraaf is proud to be the only dedicated patent and trademark consultancy in Norfolk to be featured in the Legal500 (2013 edition), and the only provider in Norwich whose patent professionals are all Fellows of CIPA.

Susan Wall is a European Trademark Attorney with specific expertise in the strategic management of IP portfolios in a broad range of industries. She advises clients on all aspects of UK and foreign trademark work, both contentious and non-contentious, and acts for clients before the UK and European Community Trade Mark (CTM) IP offices registering and defending trademark rights.

Her work was recommended in the 2013 edition of the Legal500, along with Alastair Rawlence from Novagraaf UK’s Manchester office, and Novagraaf UK’s Trademark Practice as a whole. Commenting on her recommendation, Ms Wall says: “We work hard at Novagraaf Norwich to deliver to our clients a quality service that is as tailored to their specific needs as it is professional and effective. On a personal note, it is incredibly gratifying that our clients have recognised the quality of the advice that we provide, and the effort that we dedicate to ensuring that our work supports them and their business needs.”

Dr Oliver Harris is a dual-qualified UK and European Patent Attorney with extensive experience of drafting and prosecuting patent applications on both a national and overseas basis. He handles a range of subject matter for Novagraaf UK’s clients in the East of England, but specialises in the Life Sciences, particularly pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. He was elected as a Fellow of CIPA by other Fellows of the Institute in recognition of his qualifications, good repute and professional standing.

Commenting on his appointment, Dr Harris says: “Norfolk and the East of England is a vibrant business region and a real hub for innovation. The companies that operate here need strategic partners who share their vision and appetite for quality. That’s why the Norwich office has invested so much in its team, and their ongoing training and professional growth. We are constantly striving to be the best at what we do, so that our clients get the best results without needing to look outside the region for the appropriate level of knowledge, expertise and service.”

Tom Farrand, head of Novagraaf UK’s Trademark Practice, comments: “As IP protection becomes ever more important for companies seeking to build and enforce their businesses regionally, nationally and globally, it’s crucial for IP consultancy firms to be able to provide both global and tailored local support. The wider Novagraaf Group has the resources and the experience to support businesses wherever they operate with IP-specific solutions that provide insight and deliver value, while the regional offices of Novagraaf UK specialise in tailoring those solutions to their local clients via the expertise of professionals such as Susan, Alastair and Oliver. It is this local and bespoke approach that we believe makes a real difference to our clients in the UK.”

About Novagraaf Headquartered in the Netherlands, the Novagraaf Group has offices throughout Europe in IP hotspots such as Amsterdam, Brussels, Geneva and Paris. Its UK operation is based in London, Manchester and Norwich.

Novagraaf is among the top five service providers in the field of IP in Europe. Novagraaf currently employs over 350 dedicated professionals and staff members through its 13 offices and offers a wide range of advisory and management services in the IP field. For more information, visit our website: www.novagraaf.com.

Individuals and businesses frequently take advice from professionals such as solicitors, accountants, surveyors and financial advisors. Most of the time that advice assists them in achieving their desired outcome, or places them in a more informed position to make key decisions. Occasionally, however, there is a problem with the advice which has detrimental consequences for the client. If you are faced with that scenario, what redress do you have? Head of Dispute Resolution Katy Kidd investigates.

Is it a case of professional negligence?

You may be entitled to bring a claim against the professional. The fundamental hurdles which you would need to overcome in order to make out a case are set out below.

1. Duty of Care. Firstly, you must establish that the professional owed you a duty of care. This will usually be evidenced by the fact that you instructed the professional to act for you. Alternatively, the duty may arise from the fact that the professional held himself or herself out to have a particular expertise, which you relied upon.

2. Breach of Duty of Care. You must then be able to show that the professional has breached that duty of care by falling short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent professional in the same field.

3. Loss. You must have suffered a loss. This could take many forms, for example being unable to effect a family member’s wishes due to their Will being invalid, facing a tax liability you were unaware of, discovering that your new property has suffered from subsidence, or losing money on an investment.

4. Causation. The loss you have suffered must have been caused by the professional’s breach of his/her duty of care.

Are there any other factors to consider?

It is important to remember that each case turns on its own facts. The extent of any duty or breach of it will depend upon the scope of your instructions to the professional, and it can sometimes be difficult to separate out the losses which have been caused by a breach from losses which may have arisen in any event. In cases where you have contributed to the loss by your actions or omissions, the amount of compensation to which you are entitled will be reduced.

What are the time limits?

There is a time limit within which you must start your claim against the professional. In most cases this is six years from the date of the negligence, although there can be exceptions to this.

Are there any alternatives to court action?

Yes there are, although you should remember that these alternative routes will not stop the six year time limit from running.

Most professional organisations will have a formal complaints procedure which may enable the matter to be resolved with them directly. Another option is to contact the professional’s regulatory body (such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority) or any relevant ombudsman (for example the Financial Ombudsman Service).

If those avenues are not successful, you may wish to consider court action. However, it is usually advisable to follow the Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol before commencing a claim. This is a court recognised procedure which is designed to encourage the parties to exchange full information about the claim and any potential defence before commencing a claim, so that they can understand the issues which they will face if they embark upon litigation.

Other forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation, are also possibilities. Sometimes your contract with the professional will specify the form of dispute resolution by which any disputes between you should be resolved.

Court proceedings

If it is necessary to pursue your claim through the courts, the proceedings will follow a timetable set down by the court. You will most likely need to give witness evidence in support of your case, and it may be necessary to obtain expert witness evidence from an independent expert.

Funding of the case will be a factor which you will need to discuss with your solicitor. It may be the case that you have insurance in place which will fund the litigation.

If you think you may have a claim against a professional or would like to discuss any of the issues outlined above, please contact Katy Kidd in the Dispute Resolution team on 01603 598000 or by e-mail at kkidd@steeleslaw.co.uk.

Great Yarmouth-based Survival Systems International UK is to open its first service company in Australia – a great boost for the company’s international business and a dream come true for one-time apprentice Sam Dye.

Sam will head up the new business as regional manager following several years working closely with a number of SSI clients in Australia.

“I’ve long had an ambition to live and work in Australia so it could not have worked out better,” said Sam. In 2005, he joined SSI as apprentice, with day release to Great Yarmouth College, and is now senior technician with worldwide experience, at the company’s Gapton Hall base.

The US-owned company has manufactured single-cable launched survival capsules for the offshore oil and gas industry for over 40 years. It provides the equipment, servicing and knowledge to achieve a safe evacuation when an emergency occurs on an offshore installation.

The Australian initiative could not have been timelier for Sam who this year married Jenna who shares his enthusiasm for the continent and has relatives in Australia. They expect to be leaving Bradwell, Norfolk, for their new life, probably in Melbourne, early in 2013.

“It’s a great personal opportunity for me and an excellent start to our new company in Australia. Our long-term goal is to expand our operation across the continent,” said Sam.

George Teece, SSI’s vice-president Eastern Hemisphere operations, said: “Australia has long been a target for our future growth and development and I am really excited about opening another service company for SSI.”

SSI’s Australia office and workshop will create a third international outlet overseen by the Great Yarmouth base, adding to those already in Dubai and Malaysia.

Ian Robotham (Associate Solicitor) and Marija Markovic (Trainee Solicitor) in the Dispute Resolution team at Steeles Law report on the latest development in the “Interest Rate Swap Scandal”.

Update

Since the last report by Steeles Law (click here to view the article), the first major UK mis-selling case in the interest rate swap scandal has been heard in the London High Court.

On Monday 29 October 2012, a preliminary hearing took place between Guardian Care Homes (Graiseley Investment Limited & Ors) and Barclays Bank plc. Guardian Care Homes is claiming approximately £38 million from Barclays over an allegedly mis-sold interest rate swap (hedge agreement) subject to LIBOR that was designed to protect the company from rising interest rates. There are essentially two elements to Guardian Care Homes’ claim, one is the mis-selling of the hedge itself, the other is related to the fixing of LIBOR (in which it is alleged that Barclays’ swaps were increased in price due to the rigging of the LIBOR rates).

At the hearing, Barclays had sought, inter alia, an adjournment of the claim and to resist the inclusion of the LIBOR rigging elements to Guardian Care Homes’ claim for mis-selling. Judge Julian Flaux refused to adjourn the proceedings and granted permission for the LIBOR rigging aspect of the claim to be determined by the Court.

This is the first major UK case of its kind and will be seen as a test case for further claims against banks, being closely watched by thousands of other businesses. The decision by the Court to allow the case to go to trial could potentially lead to several thousands of claims being made by other businesses and individuals against Barclays and other banks involved in selling complex financial products.

After the hearing, Barclays gave this statement:

“The Judge’s decision means these issues will need to be dealt with at full trial in due course.

We understand that Graiseley entered into their swaps with sufficient understanding to exercise their own judgement as to whether the products would meet its business objectives.

They are a significant business which owes Barclays £70 million. We do not believe the case has merit and will defend it.”

Gary Hartland, CEO of Guardian Care Homes gave his response to the Case Management Conference ruling:

“We are delighted that the judge has accepted our pleadings that Barclays should face fraud allegations in relation to attempted Libor-rigging and the aggressive selling of hedging products.

Barclays’ attempt to have this claim thrown out has now been wholeheartedly rejected by the judge.

Despite the fact that our claim has always had the Libor element, Barclays have to date refused to disclose information including the names of senior management involved in attempted rigging.

Mine is a small care home operator, and these products along with the conduct of Barclays throughout this process have had a hugely distressing impact on our staff and residents.

Today is a huge milestone with a trial now going forward to determine whether these financial products should be declared void. Our claim is not just based on mis-selling but on the effect of senior management at Barclays instructing the aggressive selling of swaps while attempting to rig Libor.”

Comments

In our view this could be a landmark case for businesses and individuals affected by the rigging scandal and the mis-selling of complex financial products.

If the case proceeds to a full trial and Barclays loses, it could be disastrous for the banks which would be likely to give many individuals and businesses the confidence to claim for losses that they allege they have suffered as a result of entering into the hedging agreements.

However, just because the Court has granted permission for Guardian Care Homes’ claim to proceed to a full trial does not mean it will succeed in that trial. In fact, the claim itself does have difficulties.

Whilst we can only speculate, we consider that the most likely outcome is that Barclays will try to settle the claim out of Court rather than risk a precedent being set which will be binding in other cases. Further, it is likely that Guardian Care Homes will be receptive to a settlement in light of the challenges it faces in succeeding with its claim.

At Steeles Law we have acted and continue to act for a number of clients involved in disputes with banks including the mis-selling of complex financial products. If you or your business has entered into a hedging agreement, whether that agreement remains in place or not, we would like to hear from you. For a no obligation discussion about interest rate hedging products call us today.

If you require do require assistance please click here for Ian Robotham and Marija Markovic’s contact details.

The Internet is becoming mobile, and by 2016 it is estimated that two-thirds of the workforce will own a smartphone. Smart businesses know that mobile access is the way to customer satisfaction and growth.

Stacey & Partners, a large firm of Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors have offices and clients throughout East Anglia. The firm has commissioned an accountancy smart phone app from developers, Crosby Associates.

The app, for apple and android includes a range of fifteen helpful tax tables and eight tax savings. It also lists a selection of their most important customer services and the contact page so that people can call the practice at the touch of a button or open Google maps to get directions to their nearest office.

It includes a number of features that Crosby Associates have developed especially for Stacey & Partners. Newly added are the expenses and business mileage log. The expenses section simply lets the user type up the expense, store it and email it to their accountant when they wish to. There’s also an upload facility that allows users to take a photo of a receipt and email it to Stacey & Partners.

The business mileage is a big new feature, it using the handset’s GPS facility to track movements to calculate the distance travelled. It also grabs the starting address and on Apple iOS it can get the destination address upon arrival, along with the date and time that the journey began.

Mark Wallace, Partner based at the firm’s Bury office said: “It is important that we deliver information to clients in an up to date and convenient matter. This phone application is the latest in a line of services we offer to clients, including our on line bookkeeping system and website.”

Lee Carroll, MD of Crosby Associates said: “Use of mobile devices for accessing the Internet is growing at a rapid rate. Manufacturers have shipped more than 472 million smartphones this year alone that doesn’t include the growing market for tablet devices. Basically Internet use is becoming mobile and businesses need to ensure they maximise the opportunities for their customers to access their services. We are seeing more demand for apps and mobile sites from businesses, like Stacey & Partners, who understand this.”

– Ends – For more information contact:-

Mark Wallace Partner 01284 773400 87 Whiting Street Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 1PD

Business in the Community is seeking a new Project Manager to support employability programmes in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.

The role is essentially concerned with engaging businesses in Get Ready! and Ready for Work – programmes which aim to help homeless people to find employment and achieve independent living by providing workshops, visits, training and work placements with local employers.

The successful candidate will have strong communication skills and be able to operate credibly at all levels in the private and community sector. The job requires sensitivity to the barriers that vulnerable people can experience in gaining sustainable employment, as well as an understanding of the business drivers and priorities of private sector employers.

Strong project management skills are required, as is the ability to prioritise a demanding workload and be administratively self sufficient.

The role is home-based but it requires travel across the region and occasional attendance at evening and early morning events.

Full job description is attached.

Instructions to apply Applications should be in the form of a full CV and supporting letter outlining how your skills and experience meet the person specification for the post. Ideally, please submit by e-mail, to recruitment@bitc.org.uk . If you don’t have access to e-mail, we accept applications by post to Human Resources Team, 137 Shepherdess Walk, London, N1 7RQ.

Closing Date: 29 November 2012 midnight Interview Date: 11 December 2012