Organised by local law firm Davis Blank Furniss, each event will include an informal networking session as well as a more structured showcase where a couple of members will have the opportunity to present their business to fellow attendees.

Kirsty Morbey, family solicitor and collaborative lawyer at Davis Blank Furniss, said: “We all know that being a working mum is hard – especially when you’re trying to juggle work and home life. The aim behind the group is to bring together local working mums, to help promote their businesses, share contacts and support each other’s local business pursuits, and to perhaps make our dual roles a little easier.”

The cost of attending the group is £3.00 per person which includes a hot drink and pastry. Places can be confirmed via http://www.dbf-law.co.uk/events/glossop-working-mum-s-networking-group/

STEP is the worldwide professional association for practitioners dealing with family inheritance and succession planning. It helps to improve public understanding of the issues families face in this area and promotes education and high professional standards among its members.

The annual STEP Excellence Awards 2013 celebrate those individuals who achieved outstanding results in either a STEP Diploma or Certificate examination or the Qualified Practitioner papers in England, Wales or Scotland.

STEP has over 18,100 members based in 87 countries from a broad range of professional backgrounds, including lawyers, accountants, trust specialists and other practitioners in this area. Its members help families plan for their futures, specialising in a wide range of activities, from drafting a relatively simple will to more complex issues surrounding international families, protection of the vulnerable, family businesses and philanthropic giving.

Karen said: “Receiving the STEP award is a great achievement and one I am really proud of. The organisation is hugely respected so winning has made all the hard work I’ve put in well worth while.”

Kate Oldfield – managing partner – added: “Karen is an integral part of the Davis Blank Furniss family so we are all delighted at her success. She is a fantastic lawyer and the award really is testament to her commitment to both her work and her clients.”

On 25th June 2013, most of the provisions in this Act relating to whistle-blowing will come into force. Therefore, if the principal reason for a dismissal is that a worker made a protected disclosure, then the normal two year qualifying period for unfair dismissal and the cap on the compensatory award are circumvented. 

Whistle-blowing will be confined to protect those who make disclosures which are made in the reasonable belief that it is made in the public interest. ‘Public interest’ is not defined, but it would cover something that affects a class of people and not just one individual. 

The provisions also expand whistle-blowing protection to those who make disclosures in bad faith (i.e. motivated by money or spite), but if the tribunal finds that the disclosure was made in bad faith then it will have the power to reduce compensation by up to 25%.

Can a compulsory retirement age of 65 be justified? 

The long saga of Mr Seldon’s case has possibly come to an end! Mr Seldon was a partner in a law firm. He brought a claim of age discrimination against the firm when he was forced to retire at the age of 65 under the partnership’s mandatory rules. Last year, the Supreme Court remitted his claim back to the employment tribunal to consider a number of issues, in particular whether 65 was an appropriate age or whether another age could be used.

Last month, the employment tribunal found in favour of the firm of solicitors. It held that a compulsory retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of workforce planning and retention of staff. Therefore, the compulsory retirement provisions in a law firm’s partnership deed were objectively justified for the purposes of age discrimination.

This case is not authority that all companies can justify the mandatory retirement age of 65 so if your business has a specified age for retirement, you must consider whether the age can be justified as being proportionate in achieving a legitimate aim of the business.

Football manager awarded full 3 year salary despite being dismissed after 57 days

Henning Berg was appointed as Blackburn Manager on a 3 year fixed term contract in November 2012. He was dismissed after only 57 days in post. His dismissal triggered a clause in his contract, which provided that he became entitled to a payment of basic salary for the balance of his fixed term – this is estimated to be a payout of £2.5million!

Initially, the Club admitted the claim and sought time to pay. It then applied to the High Court to withdraw its admission on two grounds: (1) that the Managing Director had agreed the contract without the authority of the club’s owners and (2) that the clause in question constituted a penalty and was therefore invalid.

The High Court found that the football club was contractually obliged to make the full payment to Mr Berg because (1) there was no evidence to suggest that the Managing Director’s authority was restricted, and (2) a payment would not be a penalty because it was a sum of money payable under a contract on the occurrence of a specific event, rather than being payable upon breach of contract (i.e. not a penalty).  This is a reminder that the law on penalties does not apply where the trigger for payment is not a breach of contract. It is important to be very careful when drafting clauses that provide for compensation for termination of contract before end of fixed term; the employer should be wary of circumstances arising where the contract is terminated much earlier than the end of the fixed term and the employer will then be contractually obliged to make the full pay-out.

Consultation Periods – Recent Case Law

A land-mark case, decided at the beginning of this month, has resulted in the former staff of Ethel Austin getting a share of a £5million redundancy payout.

The trade union for the former staff have successfully challenged UK legislation that only requires a collective consultation where there are 20 or more redundancies at one establishment. It was argued that EU law provides that a collective consultation is required in circumstances where there are 20 or more employees being made redundant across all the employer’s sites, and not just one site.

This decision could cause a significant increase in costs for employers who wish to make large scale redundancies across a number of sites or stores if they do not follow proper procedure. An employer cannot avoid a consultation by virtue of the fact that there are only a handful of redundancies at one site or store. If there are large scale redundancies across numerous sites and stores then the employer must have a collective consultation. This case confirms that failure to carry out the consultation may result in all the employees who are many redundant being awarded a protective award. This can be particularly costly; much more expensive than carrying out a proper consultation in the first instance.

In the case of AEI Cables v GMB, the Tribunal found that it was unreasonable for an insolvent employer to have to continue trading for 90 days in order to comply with 90 days consultation rules.  

AEI had suffered financial difficulty and it received advice from its accountants that, unless it reduced costs, there was a risk of the company trading whilst insolvent.  As a result of this, the directors could incur personal liability and also criminal liability for fraudulent trading. Following an unsuccessful request for an overdraft, the directors made 124 employees redundant with immediate effect, and without necessary consultation, in order to reduce costs.

The workers successfully claimed in the Employment Tribunal that there had been a breach of the duty to consult. The employment tribunal made 90 day protective awards to each employee. AEI appealed. In this case, the EAT acknowledged that AEI failed to consult, but it considered the reason why it had failed to do so. On the facts, the company could not trade lawfully following the advice from the accountants and therefore could not comply with the required consultation period. The EAT held that some consultation could have taken place so the 90 day award was overturned and reduced to 60 day awards. The case confirms that the EAT may be prepared to reduce the protective award if there are mitigating reasons to explain why the employer could not comply with the consultation period.

We remind you that from the 6 April 2013 the requirement for a 90 day minimum period in respect of large scale redundancies has been reduced to 45 days. The claims referred to above were made before these changes came into effect and so the 90 day period applied to these claims, but the principles set out in the judgments still apply 

But what if your “trusted advisor” lets you down, costs you more money, or is negligent?  What should you be looking for? What is the difference between poor service and negligence?

Paul Walton, a leader in the field of professional negligence will describe the types of claims in negligence that can arise against Solicitors and other Professionals and provide hints as to what to look out for when considering a claim.  He will provide case histories of some cases which he has dealt with in the recent past.  He will also outline recent changes in the Law and legal practice concerning professional negligence claims and the funding of claims.”

To book your place visit http://www.dbf-law.co.uk/events/breakfast-briefing-professional-negligence/

Andy McNish and Jessica Greenhalgh from the Corporate department, along with Richard Hamilton – partner in the Property department – provided legal advice to Alard and to its owner Graham Cooper. The other advisers were Murray Smith (accountancy) and The Business Partnership (agent).

More details on the sale can be viewed here

Kirsty will be primarily based in the firm’s Glossop office and has joined from Slater & Gordon where she has worked for the last three years. Prior to that, Kirsty worked at Gorvins and also at Rowlands.

She completed her LPC at the College of Law Chester in 1998 and graduated from Manchester University with a LLB. Law Degree in 1997. She also qualified as a Collaborative Lawyer in 2006 so will be working alongside Anita Shepherd – head of the Family Department – on general matters as well as Collaborative specific cases. Collaborative Law is aimed at clients who are experiencing a family breakdown but want to avoid going to Court. It differs from mediation as it provides separating couples with a greater degree of legal support as their lawyer is present at every meeting.

Kirsty said: “I’ve worked at large firms for many years but I knew for the next stage of my career I wanted to be somewhere that offered a more personal service and where I could make a real difference. I’ve also admired Davis Blank Furniss’ heritage and reputation for a while now so it’s great to now be part of the team.”

Kate Oldfield – managing partner – added; “We knew Kristy was a great fit as she shares our values of offering first client service and treating everyone who walks through the door as an individual. Her experience is second to none so she’s the perfect addition to the Family department which has continued to grow over the past year.”

CLICK – www.click-dbf.co.uk – allows both new and existing clients to quickly and easily book appointments online with our team of solicitors and legal experts. You simply choose the area of law you want help or advice on, select a date, decide whether you want to meet in person or speak on the telephone and then choose an available time slot. Clients are also prompted to give a summary of what they want to discuss and then an automated confirmation note is then sent out with all the details.

The service covers our core private client disciplines including; Family & Relationships, Wills, Trusts, LPAs & Probate, Property, Employment, Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence, Care of the Elderly, Dispute Resolution and Professional Negligence.

We decided to launch CLICK in response to feedback from clients who stated they often find accessing legal advice takes too much time and involves unnecessary research and discussions.

Kate Oldfield, our managing partner, commented; “Every day we are told by our clients that their time is being ever stretched and that like every other part of their lives, they want to have hassle free access to first class legal advice. More often than not, clients don’t want protracted conversations before meeting with a lawyer so CLICK has been created to overcome that.”

Kate concluded; “We feel that CLICK is the next natural step in how our clients work with us and we’re also excited to further build on our online presence.”

For more information and to view CLICK, please log onto www.click-dbf.co.uk

Collaborative Law is a relatively new process that enables couples to resolve family disputes in a constructive and conciliatory manner and without involving the court. It differs from mediation as it provides separating couples with legal support within the process as their lawyers – along with other supporting professionals such as relationship counsellors, IFAs and accountants – are present at meetings as required during the process. During these sessions, all financial and other matters are discussed and outcomes agreed. Potential clients of HOTpod will have access to some of the region’s most experienced experts and a team that is best suited to their own needs and requirements, ensuring both peace of mind and confidence.

HOTpod is overseen by Resolution, http://www.resolution.org.uk/ which was formerly known as the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA). Resolution is an organisation of 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals in England and Wales.

HOTpod was officially announced on Thursday 21^st March at an event at the Glossop Cricket Club where attendees – including Andrew Bingham MP who represents High Peak – were briefed on what Collaborative Law is and how the group will work. Member organisations include businesses actually based in the area – including; ourselves, Thorneycroft Solicitors PDA Financial Planning, Absolute Specialists, Cheshire Mediation and Bakers Solicitors – as well as professionals who live locally and work for firms such as Mills & Reeve and DTE Group. A full list of members can be viewed at http://www.resolution.org.uk/hotpod/contact/

Anita Shepherd, spokesperson for HOTpod and head of our Collaborative Law team, commented: “When a family of any shape or size splits up, the upheaval and resulting legal process can be traumatic for everyone. It can often become very acrimonious which leads to even more pain and heartache – especially if children are involved.”

Anita added: “Collaborative Law can overcome that which is why HOTpod has been launched. Every member of HOTpod is an expert in their field and our aim is to help the families of High Peak, Oldham & Tameside in both a practical but also caring way. We’d also encourage any other professionals or businesses that many want to get involved – and who can make a difference to relationship breakdowns – to please get in touch.”

For more information, please log onto http://www.resolution.org.uk/hotpod/

Q: I am a shareholder in a joint venture trading company and am engaged in a fundamental dispute with my co-shareholder and no Shareholders Agreement is in place. What are our options as shareholders?

A: The above scenario shows why a Shareholders Agreement is a vital corporate governance tool in any co-owned company. Definitive procedures can be put in place in the event of a disagreement between the co-shareholders. Obviously having a legally binding Shareholders Agreement would provide a contractual course of action and save an enormous amount of management time and professional expenses in providing a resolution to such disputes. However where no Shareholders Agreement is in place the way forward is often as follows:

• Primarily the Articles of Association of the Company should be reviewed as they may contain transfer provisions that can assist in breaking a deadlock situation between equal shareholders. A reasonably robust set of Articles may contain certain compulsory transfer events if a shareholder defaults. This would at least ensure that upon the occurrence of an exit event (in the Articles) the shareholder who is not in default could buy out the defaulting shareholder. However, such provisions are fairly uncommon in proforma or precedent Articles of Association and are often only included when revised Articles of Association are put in place accompanying a Shareholders Agreement.
• In the absence of corporate governance provisions in the Shareholders Agreement and Articles of Association, it may be necessary to take the drastic step of actually winding up the Company via a solvent liquidation (Members Voluntary Liquidation). Again, the Company’s Articles of Association would need to be checked to ascertain if there are any specific class rights relating to shareholders in this area. However, this procedure needs the co-operation of both shareholders and a meeting of minds may not be available given the deadlock scenario. 
• If the shareholders do not co-operate to achieve a Members Voluntary Liquidation (“MVL”), it may be viable to consider obtaining a Winding Up Order of the court pursuant to Section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the grounds that it is just and equitable that the Company be wound up. This is a very old fashioned remedy and remains at the court’s discretion whether the just and equitable grounds are actually satisfied. Accordingly this relatively expensive course of action may not provide an automatic solution to a shareholder dispute. In addition, in order to present a Petition, a shareholder must have held such shares for at least six months and be able to show a bona fide financial interest in the Company (i.e. that the Company has enough assets to make a distribution to shareholders in the event of an MVL).

The above issues clearly demonstrate the value of a suitable Shareholders Agreement. Even a relatively simple document would contain the alternatives of exit events, mediation for the shareholders or indeed some sort of “Russian Roulette” scenario for the two shareholders – a process that requires one of the two deadlocked parties to serve a notice on the other party naming a price at which it values a half interest in the Company. The shareholder receiving the notice then has the option to either buy the other party out, or sell out to the other shareholder, at that price.

Sonio Singh: Partner in the Corporate Department

 —

Q: I am the sole director/shareholder in my business. I currently have a simple Will leaving everything to my wife. I have been advised that I should consider making a new Will, to ensure I maximise the available inheritance tax reliefs. What does this mean?

A: If you own an interest in a trading business, whether as a shareholder, partner or sole trader, it is possible that your interest may, in certain circumstances, qualify for Business Property Relief. This is a form of inheritance tax relief whereby the value of the business on your death can be discounted by as much as 100% for the purposes of inheritance tax. If you have a Will leaving everything to your wife, then the BPR is wasted, because gifts to your wife are spouse exempt. It is possible – however – to put a trust in the Will to preserve the relief, but still provide for your family at the same time so it would certainly be worth speaking to a solicitor in more detail about your options.

Karen Witter: Partner & Family & Private Client Solicitor

—

Q: I am the landlord of a long residential lease. The tenant has temporarily moved out of the flat while decorative works are carried out. The tenant is in substantial arrears of rent and the lease contains a right to forfeit for non-payment of rent. The tenant has confirmed in writing that the arrears are due and owing. Can I exercise the right to forfeit by peaceable re-entry?

A: In principle, a landlord can re-enter a residential premises which he or she reasonably believes the tenant has ceased to occupy. It would be advisable to do this by court proceedings if there is any uncertainty as it is a criminal offence to forfeit by peaceable re-entry if the tenant is lawfully in occupation. If the landlord has reasonable grounds to believe that the residency has come to an end, this restriction on forfeiture will not apply. However, the absence must be more than temporary. Therefore, vacating the property for a short period while repair works are carried out will not be sufficient.

Richard Hamilton: Partner in the Property Department

Jennifer joined our Manchester office from North Ainley Solicitors in January as an assistant solicitor. Her new role sees her working on both commercial and residential clients and she is directly reporting into Richard Hamilton – partner. Jennifer graduated from the University of Manchester with a BA Government and Law in 2003 and she completed her LPC at Manchester Metropolitan University. She has also previously worked at Horwich Cohen Coghlan (formerly Rowe Cohen).

Whilst over in Glossop, Emma Little has been promoted to paralageal. Emma, who has worked at Davis Blank Furniss for 16 years, has held various positions across the firm and she is now working closely with Martyn Gee – partner – and Susan Bann – partner – on all their conveyancing matters; from initial instruction to completion.

Our final piece of ‘People News’ is the appointment of Kirsty and she is now a part-time assistant solicitor in the Family Department of our Glossop office. Kirsty has joined us from Slater & Gordon where she worked for the last three years. Prior to that she worked at Gorvins and also at Rowlands. Kirsty completed the LPC at the College of Law Chester in 1998 and graduated from Manchester University with a LL.B. Law Degree in 1997. She also qualified as a Collaborative Lawyer in 2006 so will be working alongside Anita Shepherd in HOTpod.

Kate Oldfield – managing partner – said: “As a firm, we know our business is based on the skills and talent of our people. These two latest appointments – along with Emma’s promotion – are testament to the importance and value we place on growing the right team. We’re delighted to still be increasing our headcount and I’m pleased to say both our new starters are already making their mark.”