Member News

It is now a little over a year since the Bribery Act came into force and there have been few significant reported cases. However, the law remains important and we will undoubtedly see more prosecutions for bribery in the coming years. It is now common practice for businesses to require contractors and suppliers to comply with anti-corruption policies and to have anti-corruption clauses in contracts as standard.

Every business operating in the UK should ensure that they and their staff are aware of this important legislation and that they have in place adequate policies and training to limit their risk of involvement in any bribery or corruption anywhere in the world. It is worth noting that a business can be guilty of the offence of failing to prevent bribery if it does not have in place adequate measures to prevent bribery.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting most breaches of the Bribery Act, has recently updated the guidance on its enforcement policy. This, in part, reflects a general change in approach by the SFO which has a new Director General. Two key changes are:

• Facilitation Payments – These are (usually small) payments made to an official to perform or speed up performance of a service. Examples include payments made to an official to speed up the processing of papers or release of goods. It was always clear that such payments are illegal bribes under UK law unlike in the US where they may be permitted.

Previously there was clear acceptance by the SFO and others that in some countries it is difficult to avoid paying these and that the SFO would not prosecute where businesses were taking steps to move towards compliance.

The stated position now is simply that the SFO will prosecute where it believes that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to do so.

• Self Reporting – Previously the SFO encouraged organisations to self-report potential breaches of the Bribery Act and stated that it would generally seek civil rather than criminal redress for breaches that had been self-reported. This guidance has now been revoked and replaced with the same stated position as above that the SFO will prosecute where it believes that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to do so.

There is still a role for self-reporting and it may be taken into account in the SFO’s decision as to whether to prosecute alongside other factors relating to the conduct of the business. However, self-reporting provides no guarantee that there will not be a prosecution and any decisions on this will need careful consideration.

These changes do not appear to indicate a significant change in attitude to the Bribery Act but do remove some of the comfort that was provided when the legislation was first introduced.

One area that had caused significant concern for businesses was in relation to corporate hospitality and entertainment. The SFO does repeat the comfort that was given previously with its statement that “Bona fide hospitality or promotional or other legitimate business expenditure is recognised as an established and important part of doing business.”.

For more information on the Bribery Act including access to our online training module please contact James Tarling on 01603 598000 or jtarling@steeleslaw.co.uk.

The School of World Art Studies and Museology and associated partners based at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts offer a variety of Masters level courses. Scholarships and other awards available include:

2 x MA Scholarships offered for the following courses with a value equivalent to Home/EU fees:– MA Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies – MA Cultural Heritage and International Development – MA History of Art – MA Museum Studies

4 x MA Museum Studies Internships are also offered as part of our MA Museum Studies degree. A programme of workplace-based training will be arranged for each Intern who will be expected to contribute to the work of their team as though they were members of staff. The internships cover fees (at the Home/EU student rate) and a bursary of approximately £5,000. One internship is available in each of the following areas:– Curatorial – Collections Management – Education – Marketing/Public Services For further information please visit www.uea.ac.uk/art/pgtfunding or contact the Admissions Team, email: admissions@uea.ac.uk

The Sainsbury Research Unit for the Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas (SRU) offers five scholarships for study on its MA programme commencing in September 2013. The scholarships cover fees at Home/EU and Overseas rates.

Applicants are also eligible to apply for the Robert Sainsbury Library Bursary – a programme that gives students an opportunity to train in the SRU’s own specialist library.

The closing date for admission applications is 1 March 2013.

The five SRU scholarships will be offered to applicants on the following MA degree:

• MA Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas

The Sainsbury Research Unit is based in the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts with its exceptional collections of world art spanning 5,000 years. The SRU is an international centre for the study of the arts of Africa, the Pacific region and the Americas, providing high-quality individual tuition and supervision for postgraduates. It has a specialist research library and excellent study facilities. As part of the School of World Art Studies and Museology and the newly-formed Sainsbury Institute for Art, the SRU contributes to a substantial and lively scholarly community in the Sainsbury Centre. In the latest Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) the School was rated first in the UK for internationally-recognised research. SRU faculty are currently engaged in major research projects.

To find out more about SRU faculty, programmes, facilities and funding, please go to:www.sru.uea.ac.uk

The MA programme provides candidates with detailed knowledge of the visual arts, historical and contemporary, of Africa, Oceania and the Americas. Employing anthropological, archaeological and art-historical approaches, it is suitable as a stand-alone Masters or as a foundation for doctoral research. Emphasis is placed on small-group and individual tuition and the development of research skills. A strong museological emphasis makes this course appropriate for those interested in a career in museum curatorship, a pathway followed successfully by many alumni.

Visit our website for further details on funding, atwww.uea.ac.uk/art/postgraduatescholarships/fundingtaught

Follow the ‘Courses’ link for information about eligible MA degrees and for online application materials. Please indicate on your application form that you wish to be considered for Sainsbury Research Unit funding; all UK, EU and international students are eligible for this award.

Please contact the SRU Academic Secretary, Helen Sibley, on h.sibley@uea.ac.uk if you have questions about the course or the application procedure.

Bigfork were appointed to design and build a new website for Datasquasher, a new mobile app that compresses and tracks your mobile data usage. Our job was to design a website that promotes the key benefits of Datasquasher which includes:

• saving money by reducing your data usage
• faster internet browsing and longer battery life
• safer internet browsing
• monitoring the data you use and save

Website features include an online demo showing how much data you can save on any chosen website. The app is available on the Apple iOS app store and you can trial it for free. See full details at www.datasquasher.com

To see more examples of our work go to the Bigfork Portfolio.

Steeles Law Head of Planning & Environment David Merson looks at the Coalition’s proposals to revise the planning appeal process to: “…make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timetables, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties and lead to quicker development where the appeal is upheld”.

The CLG ‘Technical Review of Planning Appeal Procedures’ Consultation document contemplates a number of possible changes to the appeals regime.

It is suggested that the process will benefit from:

1. Ensuring earlier submission and notification of appeal statements to allow early and full disclosure of issues and evidence by amending the rules and regulations to require the appellant to submit their full appeal statement as part of their grounds of appeal on submission of the appeal, and to ensure local planning authorities notify interested parties within one week rather than the current timetable of 2 weeks after they have received notice of a valid appeal.

This would happen at the time the authority submits its questionnaire form to the Planning Inspectorate, a week earlier than is currently the case. Interested parties will then see the key issues at the time that they have the opportunity to comment which will encourage earlier engagement on the key issues. Only in respect of inquiries will the submission of more detail, in the form of proofs of evidence, be acceptable.

In addition it is proposed that parties will have to provide information on the appeal forms of the number of witnesses and the length of time they need to give their evidence. Model appeal forms questionnaires will be revised accordingly and Inspectors will be enabled to hold parties to their forecast time estimates unless the party can demonstrate that there has been a clear change in circumstances which warrant a change. If a party extends their evidence beyond their submitted estimate without adequate reasons then the Inspector could challenge them on their timetable and whether anything new is going to be said. If the party continues beyond the timetable following such challenge other parties could apply for costs if the extended period did not result in evidence being presented that was not previously covered in the written or oral evidence to that point.

2. Securing early agreement on ‘Common Grounds’ upfront to facilitate sharing of documents, narrow the areas of dispute, and focus the parties’ effort on the main issues by bringing discussion on common ground issues to the forward in the timetable. This is to be achieved by amending the Development Management Procedure Order and the Inquiry Rules to require the appellant to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal. The local planning authority would then have until week 5 to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which should then require no or little consideration at the event. If the local planning authority does not signal to the appellant that they disagree with the appellant’s facts then they will be considered to be uncontested by the local planning authority.

3. Ensuring parties are prepared to present their case earlier within tighter Planning Inspectorate timetabling guidelines so that hearings and inquiries are started sooner by shortening the time between the start of the appeal and the appeal event and amending the relevant secondary legislation so that an inquiry determined by an inspector should be held not later than 16 weeks (and for hearing later than 10 weeks) after the starting date unless such a date is considered impracticable.

4. Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’ (CAS) along the lines of the Householder Appeals Service to deal with appeals on some minor commercial planning applications where the planning issues raised are straight forward, the appeal can be dealt with without the need for further representations, and there is not a significant level of broader community interest.

It is also suggested that there is merit in applying this more transparent legislative process to Advertisement Consent appeals to allow for more consistent administration of the process by the Planning Inspectorate.

The CAS would be an expedited form of the written representations procedure to offer a faster commercial planning appeal procedure for less complex appeals, enabling the Inspectorate to make a decision in 8 weeks. The time period for lodging such an appeal would be reduced to only 12 weeks rather than the usual 6 months. The process would require early identification of such applications so that interested parties could be notified at the application stage that there would not be a further opportunity to make comment should the application go via the expedited appeal route. The Planning Inspectorate would retain the power to determine the appropriate appeal procedure where an individual case was not appropriate for an expedited process.

There would be an element of choice for qualifying commercial appeals and appeals determined by the CAS would be based on the appellant’s brief appeal statement plus the original planning application documentation and any comments made at the application stage (including those of interested parties). It is anticipated that such appeals would include Advertisement consent appeals, Appeals on changes to shop fronts, and Change of use and other minor development that relate to straight forward proposals of under 1000m2.

It is also proposed to improve the certainty and consistency of the process in so far as it relates to a number of other areas such as enforcement, and Listed Building consents etc. The existing rules and regulations will therefore be amended so that the Planning Inspectorate is allowed to determine the procedure (in consultation with appellants and local planning authorities) for other types of appeals, such as Advertisement consent, Listed Building and Lawful Development Certificate appeals. It is also suggested that the rules governing Enforcement appeals could be amended to bring Enforcement hearings and inquiries into line with the procedural changes made in 2009 to planning appeals.

The Coalition will also consider whether its other proposals referred to above should be applied more widely to other appeal proceedings, in particular enforcement appeals. Finally, the rules and regulations that set out the appeals procedures will be brought together into a simple single merged statutory instrument.

5. The issuing of a single streamlined guide to planning appeal procedures setting out national criteria and guidance on appeals and setting expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence together with clarity on any grounds for a submission for an award of costs.

6. Moving to a more transparent online appeals model to fit in with the Coalition’s broader ‘Digital by Default’ agenda to assist the Planning Inspectorate to streamline some of its business processes will mean that appellants will need to be further encouraged to submit appeals on-line.

7. Revising and clarifying the determination criteria for determining the correct procedure for planning appeals and Enforcement appeals so that it is clearly understood what kind of reasons indicate that any particular appeal procedure be followed, thereby reducing the likelihood of challenge and subsequent delay.

In respect of the existing guidance on contentious proposals that have generated significant local interest, the amendment is to make it clear that a hearing or inquiry will be arranged where the local planning authority is aware that there is significant local interest and that: (i) it demonstrably requires that an Inspector hears evidence and / or asks questions of appeal parties, and (ii) where the local authority considers that (and can explain why) there is good reason to expect that it is necessary for the significant public representation to give evidence at an oral event.

8. More bespoke timetables for inquiries will need to be agreed and it is proposed that this process is applied to inquiries forecast to last 3 days or more.

The closing date for responses is 13 December 2012.

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

Steeles Law Head of Planning & Environment David Merson looks at the Coalition’s proposals to revise the planning appeal process to: “…make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timetables, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties and lead to quicker development where the appeal is upheld”.

The CLG ‘Technical Review of Planning Appeal Procedures’ Consultation document contemplates a number of possible changes to the appeals regime.

It is suggested that the process will benefit from:

1. Ensuring earlier submission and notification of appeal statements to allow early and full disclosure of issues and evidence by amending the rules and regulations to require the appellant to submit their full appeal statement as part of their grounds of appeal on submission of the appeal, and to ensure local planning authorities notify interested parties within one week rather than the current timetable of 2 weeks after they have received notice of a valid appeal.

This would happen at the time the authority submits its questionnaire form to the Planning Inspectorate, a week earlier than is currently the case. Interested parties will then see the key issues at the time that they have the opportunity to comment which will encourage earlier engagement on the key issues. Only in respect of inquiries will the submission of more detail, in the form of proofs of evidence, be acceptable.

In addition it is proposed that parties will have to provide information on the appeal forms of the number of witnesses and the length of time they need to give their evidence. Model appeal forms questionnaires will be revised accordingly and Inspectors will be enabled to hold parties to their forecast time estimates unless the party can demonstrate that there has been a clear change in circumstances which warrant a change. If a party extends their evidence beyond their submitted estimate without adequate reasons then the Inspector could challenge them on their timetable and whether anything new is going to be said. If the party continues beyond the timetable following such challenge other parties could apply for costs if the extended period did not result in evidence being presented that was not previously covered in the written or oral evidence to that point.

2. Securing early agreement on ‘Common Grounds’ upfront to facilitate sharing of documents, narrow the areas of dispute, and focus the parties’ effort on the main issues by bringing discussion on common ground issues to the forward in the timetable. This is to be achieved by amending the Development Management Procedure Order and the Inquiry Rules to require the appellant to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal. The local planning authority would then have until week 5 to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which should then require no or little consideration at the event. If the local planning authority does not signal to the appellant that they disagree with the appellant’s facts then they will be considered to be uncontested by the local planning authority.

3. Ensuring parties are prepared to present their case earlier within tighter Planning Inspectorate timetabling guidelines so that hearings and inquiries are started sooner by shortening the time between the start of the appeal and the appeal event and amending the relevant secondary legislation so that an inquiry determined by an inspector should be held not later than 16 weeks (and for hearing later than 10 weeks) after the starting date unless such a date is considered impracticable.

4. Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’ (CAS) along the lines of the Householder Appeals Service to deal with appeals on some minor commercial planning applications where the planning issues raised are straight forward, the appeal can be dealt with without the need for further representations, and there is not a significant level of broader community interest.

It is also suggested that there is merit in applying this more transparent legislative process to Advertisement Consent appeals to allow for more consistent administration of the process by the Planning Inspectorate.

The CAS would be an expedited form of the written representations procedure to offer a faster commercial planning appeal procedure for less complex appeals, enabling the Inspectorate to make a decision in 8 weeks. The time period for lodging such an appeal would be reduced to only 12 weeks rather than the usual 6 months. The process would require early identification of such applications so that interested parties could be notified at the application stage that there would not be a further opportunity to make comment should the application go via the expedited appeal route. The Planning Inspectorate would retain the power to determine the appropriate appeal procedure where an individual case was not appropriate for an expedited process.

There would be an element of choice for qualifying commercial appeals and appeals determined by the CAS would be based on the appellant’s brief appeal statement plus the original planning application documentation and any comments made at the application stage (including those of interested parties). It is anticipated that such appeals would include Advertisement consent appeals, Appeals on changes to shop fronts, and Change of use and other minor development that relate to straight forward proposals of under 1000m2.

It is also proposed to improve the certainty and consistency of the process in so far as it relates to a number of other areas such as enforcement, and Listed Building consents etc. The existing rules and regulations will therefore be amended so that the Planning Inspectorate is allowed to determine the procedure (in consultation with appellants and local planning authorities) for other types of appeals, such as Advertisement consent, Listed Building and Lawful Development Certificate appeals. It is also suggested that the rules governing Enforcement appeals could be amended to bring Enforcement hearings and inquiries into line with the procedural changes made in 2009 to planning appeals.

The Coalition will also consider whether its other proposals referred to above should be applied more widely to other appeal proceedings, in particular enforcement appeals. Finally, the rules and regulations that set out the appeals procedures will be brought together into a simple single merged statutory instrument.

5. The issuing of a single streamlined guide to planning appeal procedures setting out national criteria and guidance on appeals and setting expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence together with clarity on any grounds for a submission for an award of costs.

6. Moving to a more transparent online appeals model to fit in with the Coalition’s broader ‘Digital by Default’ agenda to assist the Planning Inspectorate to streamline some of its business processes will mean that appellants will need to be further encouraged to submit appeals on-line.

7. Revising and clarifying the determination criteria for determining the correct procedure for planning appeals and Enforcement appeals so that it is clearly understood what kind of reasons indicate that any particular appeal procedure be followed, thereby reducing the likelihood of challenge and subsequent delay.

In respect of the existing guidance on contentious proposals that have generated significant local interest, the amendment is to make it clear that a hearing or inquiry will be arranged where the local planning authority is aware that there is significant local interest and that: (i) it demonstrably requires that an Inspector hears evidence and / or asks questions of appeal parties, and (ii) where the local authority considers that (and can explain why) there is good reason to expect that it is necessary for the significant public representation to give evidence at an oral event.

8. More bespoke timetables for inquiries will need to be agreed and it is proposed that this process is applied to inquiries forecast to last 3 days or more.

The closing date for responses is 13 December 2012.

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

Norfolk Chamber Gold PatronGreater Anglia has triumphed at the National Cycle Rail Awards 2012. In partnership with Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council, the operator won the ‘Station Travel Plan Measure for Cycling Award’ for the Colchester station Travel Plan.

Greater Anglia was also highly commended in the ‘Operator of the Year’ and the ‘Best Customer Service’ categories.

In presenting the award and the commendations, the judges recognised that Greater Anglia has implemented a wide variety of cycle-focused enhancements since the franchise began in February 2012, including upgrades to existing facilities, creating a new cycle strategy and making arrangements for special cycling events. These achievements have been delivered in the first 9 months of the Greater Anglia franchise and are the first of a number of improvements the operator is committed to providing in the region.

Measures already in place include an increase in cycle parking across the network bringing the total number of cycle spaces at Greater Anglia stations to 6,000, with schemes at Billericay, Kelvedon and Rayleigh, plus a new secure cycle compound at Manningtree. On-going enhancements include plans to develop new cycle parking initiatives at Cambridge and Chelmsford, a cycle hire scheme at Norwich and a new Plus Cycle hire scheme and additional bike parking at 15 stations.

The ‘Station Travel Plan Measure for Cycling Award’ specifically recognised the Colchester Travel Plan, a partnership project between the local train operator, Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council. One of 24 pilot schemes nationwide, Colchester was chosen as the award winner because of the sheer scope of the improvements in a range of sustainable access modes – especially cycling. The project has seen a consistent emphasis on cycling, with activities ranging from new cycle stands, increasing cycle parking capacity by 50%, to improvements to cycle routes into the station, as well as awareness campaigns and events. As a result, at least 50% more people now use bikes to travel to the station.

Some of the comments made by the judges in recognising Greater Anglia’s achievements included:

“When awarding the best station travel plan, the judges felt Colchester demonstrated an excellent link to wider transport needs and the local community. Evidence of success is extremely strong and will set the blueprint for successful cycle-rail schemes across the Greater Anglia network and beyond.”

“A great start…the judges were impressed with Greater Anglia’s variety of services, demonstrating a commitment to customer service and an understanding of cycling.”

Ruud Haket Greater Anglia’s Managing Director said “Our National Cycle Rail Award together with the commendations is a testament to the hard work and vision of our team at Greater Anglia, together with that of our partners at Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council. We are committed to encouraging more people to cycle to our stations, to improve cycle parking and to enhance the station interchange facilities with other modes of transport. We look forward to working with our partners on further projects in the future.”

Norfolk charity BUILD are looking for a Norwich based meeting room, available on occassional Monday evenings between 6.30pm and 9.30pm for around 15 people attending governance, project planning and training events.

With a limited budget, but able to fund refreshments, we are looking for somewhere that is accessible, and close to parking, and could be seen as a local business contribution to supporting our charity, which we would recognise in publicity materials.

Contact James Kearns, CEO james.kearns@buildcharity.co.uk with any offers.

Alex Butler-Zagni has joined Ashton KCJ’s Agriculture & Estates team in Norwich as an Agricultural Solicitor.

Alex joins us from the National Farmers Union (NFU), where he was the East Anglia Policy Adviser for almost seven years. Alex’s role included representing NFU members on all livestock, poultry and dairy related matters within the region.

Alex was called to Bar in 2002 and qualified as a Solicitor in 2010. Prior to the NFU, Alex worked for the Serious Fraud Office, 2 Paper Buildings, Temple and Russell Cooke Solicitors in London, as well as other firms in the Suffolk area.

Alex’s technical knowledge includes EU policy, CAP reform implications, livestock movement and recording rules, and funding opportunities under the Rural Development Programme for England. He also has a particular interest in renewable energy, rural crime, and the better regulation agenda.

Jonathan Long, Head of Agriculture & Estates at Ashton KCJ, comments: “We are delighted to welcome Alex to the team; his wide experience in agriculture in the region complements the work of the team. Alex joins partner Simon Cunningham in our Norwich office. I would like to wish Alex all the very best in his career at Ashton KCJ.”

Ashton KCJ Solicitors has won the LawNet 2012 award for best website just five months after the website was launched. It was particularly commended by the judges for ease of navigation by users and up-to-date content.

LawNet is a national network of over 60 independent law firms who are committed to rigorous quality standards and best practice. The prestigious LawNet awards are judged not by lawyers but by relevant external specialists. The website award this year was judged by marketing practitioners with a national reputation in the legal sector.

The LawNet 2012 award winners were announced on Friday 9 November at an awards ceremony in Kenilworth, Warwickshire. Ashton KCJ also received ‘highly commended’ for our submission for ‘Excellence in Risk Management and Compliance’.

The website www.ashtonkcj.co.uk was launched in July this year and was built to replace an interim site which was put in place following our merger in October 2011. Vicki Clover, Communications Manager at Ashton KCJ, worked closely with Norwich based web design agency, NetMatters to launch the site.

The website has been built to ensure an excellent user experience, with improved navigation, regularly updated content and ensuring that the site is as interactive as possible, through the use of online enquiry forms, event bookings and payments, questionnaires, photos and videos.

We have developed three separate online sites which are accessible from the main website, including an online conveyancing tracking service. A mobile version of the site was also developed, recognising that more and more people browse the web via mobile devises.

As well as the above, the award also recognised that the website has been designed with search engines in mind. We have worked with a local Ipswich based firm, iMarketing, to maximise our Search Engine Optimisation and have increased our presence on social media channels to support this work.

Ashton KCJ CEO, Simon Smith, said: “Congratulations to the Business Development team and to the staff who have supported them with this initiative. Well done also to our Risk and Compliance team for their tireless work. These achievements, together with our recent successes in the Legal 500 and Chambers rankings, demonstrate our commitment to excellence and the positive direction in which the firm is moving, just over a year on from our merger.”

The Chambers and Partners’ UK 2013 independent guide to law firms and individual lawyers has recently been released and, as with the Legal 500 guide, Leathes Prior continues to gain accolades across the board.

The Chambers UK guide is based on extensive qualitative research carried out with clients and lawyers with particular focus on client feedback. This year Leathes Prior has seen an impressive uplift in their rankings with five practice areas increasing their rankings and two new practice areas being recognised for the first time. We believe this is due to an increased commitment on the part of the firm to make Chambers more aware of the scope and quality of our advice but it is also down to our clients, who we would like to thank, for the time they have taken to participate in the research facilitating these results.

The five practice areas that have improved in their rankings are: Corporate/M&A, Dispute Resolution, Employment, Information Technology and Real Estate with Private Client and Real Estate Litigation, both going straight into a ranking at Tier 2 (Tiers are ranked 1 (the best) through to 6). Part of this success is due to the new rankings for Katie Franklin, an Associate in the Employment team, who has increased her ranking to ‘Star Associate’ in the provision of employment advice in both Norwich and East Anglia and Ina Beurich, a solicitor in the Insolvency team, ranked as an ‘Associate to Watch’ – both helping the firm go from strength to strength.

The 2013 edition of Chambers UK also saw several new individual rankings for Leathes Prior’s Partners, including Mike Barlow, Dan Chapman and Darren Bowen.

See below for Leathes Prior’s Rankings in Chambers UK 2013 both in respect of Practice Areas (and their bandings) and the Key Individuals from within those areas that featured:

CORPORATE/M&A

Norwich and Surrounds – Band 3

The “responsive and reliable” team at Leathes Prior is recommended for handling mid-range M&A transactions that span different industries. Clients praise the professionalism and availability of its practitioners. Highlights include advising Norwich City Football Club on the rescheduling of its debt finance arrangements.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Paul Warman – Norwich – Band 3

Paul Warman has a wide range of experience in corporate law, including M&A, MBOs and corporate restructurings. Sources praise him for his “all-round knowledge of the law and ability to focus on what the client requires.”

Peter Sheppard – Norwich – Band 3

Peter Sheppard has particular expertise in the private healthcare, packaging and print industries. Market sources praise him for his professionalism and the added value he brings to clients, noting that “he became part of the team.”

______________________________________

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Norwich and surrounds – Band 2

This team is held in high esteem for its efficient and effective advice to clients on a wide range of commercial disputes. It has notable expertise in property related disputes. Clients praise the “highly professional and personal” service and one source enthused that it “just seems to be quietly getting it right.” Clients include Norse Commercial Services, ChemSource and Rooflite.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Mike Barlow – Norwich – Band 2

Mike Barlow is recommended by sources for his expertise in IP, franchising and professional negligence claims. One client said: “He is highly professional, knowledgeable and aware of our business needs.”

______________________________________

EMPLOYMENT

Norwich and surrounds – Band 1

This “professional and experienced team” offers “a level of client service that is as close to faultless as could be achieved,” say interviewees. The firm has branched out beyond its roots in Norfolk to attract an enviable national client base, demonstrating particularly strong connections among the transport, education, healthcare and insurance sectors. Clients facing tribunal hearings can count on the team’s experienced support, as Ashfords did concerning litigation arising out of the collapse of Connaught. The team has the capacity to represent both companies and senior executives.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Dan Chapman – Norwich – Band 1, East Anglia – Band 2

Clients attest that they have “rarely found someone as commercially aware” as Dan Chapman, who impresses with his “quick,” “pragmatic” and “dynamic approach.” His reputation for advocacy precedes him, as does his work on behalf of recruitment agents.

Katie Franklin – Norwich – Star Associate, East Anglia – Star Associate

“No-nonsense” Katie Franklin is “always black and white” in responding to the needs of clients. Like Chapman, she appears frequently at employment tribunals.

______________________________________

FRANCHISING

UK-wide – Band 2

The highly experienced team at Leathes Prior advises both franchisors and franchisees operating in a range of sectors. The team is also able to draw on the experience of other members of the firm in order to cater to the needs of clients. It has acted for Drain Doctor on a number of matters pertaining to its franchising operations, and also advises the Reptile Franchise Company on all aspects related to the franchising of the business. Other clients include Make Believe Franchising, TaxAssist, Vision Marketing and Sales and Countrywide Signs.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Mike Barlow – UK-wide – Band 2

Mike Barlow is appreciated by clients for his wealth of experience in dealing with contentious and non-contentious franchising matters. He recently led the team advising the Ascertiva Group on the establishment of the Puragen Franchise.

Jonathan Chadd – UK-wide – Band 2

Jonathan Chadd has “years of real experience” and is praised by clients for his high levels of knowledge and approachability. He recently assisted Bathstore.com on amendments to its franchise agreements.

______________________________________

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Norwich and surrounds – Band 1

Leathes Prior is a key presence in the Norwich IT market, advising on software development agreements and software licensing, as well as a range of internet-related matters, such as e-commerce, domain name lease and website development agreements. In recent work highlights the firm has advised agrochemicals company Glo Grow on a privacy policy and e-commerce terms for its website. On the contentious side, the firm acted for Falcon Global in a dispute with an IT maintenance contractor over the alleged accessing of confidential information regarding the client’s Asset Integrity Management System.

______________________________________

PRIVATE CLIENT

Norwich and surrounds – Band 2

This compact team is comprised of three lawyers and advises on the full run of private client matters, acting for executors and affected individuals on trusts, tax, wills and probate matters. The group is also able to advise clients on contentious matters, such as claims brought in relation to inheritance disputes. Sources value the team for being “approachable and down-to-earth.”

______________________________________

REAL ESTATE

Norwich and surrounds – Band 4

The real estate department of Leathes Prior is “diligent” and “very quick to respond,” providing clients with “an excellent service.” The practice is focused particularly on development and portfolio work, with clients drawn from the education, healthcare and sports sectors. The team has been instructed by NatWest, Novus Homes and Trustees of the Great Hospital.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Robert Sibley – Norwich – Band 2

Robert Sibley is head of the real estate team at Leathes Prior. He recently advised Bathstore.com on its retail expansion programme and Black Swan International on a multimillion-pound care home group refinancing.

______________________________________

REAL ESTATE LITIGATION

Norwich and surrounds – Band 2

This firm advises on all aspects of commercial, residential and agricultural property disputes. Sources attest that the four-strong team is “highly professional and very personable,” and that it is adept at providing “accurate information, advice and action delivered in a timely manner.” Clients include Dereham Town Council, and the firm is particularly noted for its strong private client base.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Darren Bowen – Norwich – Band 1

Darren Bowen who heads the property litigation team is described by sources as “very professional and very easy to communicate with, but can also explain issues in a way which a lay person can easily understand.”

______________________________________

RESTRUCTURING/INSOLVENCY

Norwich and surrounds – Band 2

The specialist team at Leathes Prior has a reputation for expertise in corporate insolvencies. It is developing significant experience of acting for financially distressed sports businesses and clubs, and also advises insolvency practitioners on matters relating to their appointments to distressed businesses. Clients include F A Simms & Partners, Smith Aston, Baker Tilly and Ensors.

KEY INDIVIDUALS

Adam McCaw – Norwich – Band 2

Adam McCaw advises on personal insolvency and also displays deep expertise in corporate recovery and turnaround procedures. Interviewees say “he really knows his stuff” and “identifies practical solutions.” Clients praise his professionalism, accessibility and commitment to clients in difficult situations.

Ina Beurich – Norwich – Associate to Watch

Ina Beurich advises and assists clients on all aspects of insolvency law and practice. Sources say they “cannot praise her enough.”

UEA spin-out company, Intelligent Fingerprinting, was named the region’s ‘One to Watch’ business at the EDP’s annual Business Awards ceremony which took place last night at a gala event at the Holiday Inn in Norwich.

The One to Watch category set out to identify a company from within the EDP’s Future 50 family of businesses able to demonstrate a pioneering approach to business and with the potential to flourish and deliver impressive results. The category is about recognising an early stage business which shows the promise to become a success story of tomorrow. Judges were looking for drive, impact, potential and vision.

Intelligent Fingerprinting was one of three finalists competing for the award, which was sponsored by NWES. Professor David Russell received the award from BBC Look East’s Stewart White.

For further information about the Business Awards visit www.edpbusinessawards.co.uk

For more information about Intelligent Fingerprinting visit www.intelligentfingerprinting.com