Managing Partner, Richard Etheridge was invited to talk to the ACCA (Norwich branch) at a seminar on October 20th held at St Andrews House Redwell Street Norwich. The subject of the seminar was "Aquisitions and Disposals for SMEs" and other speakers on the evening were Mark Curtis & Giles Kirkham from Larking Gowen and Dan Meston from Lloyds Bank.
The audience numbered 50 people and the talk was received very well indeed on what is a very complicated but topical subject. One guest was quoted as saying "Just wanted to thank Richard for a great talk last night at St Andrews House. It was a very practical approach to selling/buying a business" while the President of ACCA commented:-
I cannot thank you all enough for the excellent CPD course you put on for us yesterday evening. Needless to say, the feedback forms gave you very high ratings and I thought I would report back on one comment which I think sums it up:
“One of the best and most interesting CPD events I have ever attended”.
I thought it was balanced, packed with enough and not too much information, well presented and demonstrated that you are all people to work with.
If you require any further information about the event or need any guidance on This or any other legal matter then please contact Richard on 01603 675627 or rwje@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Prenuptial Agreements:Radmacher - one year on
The 20th October 2011 was the one-year anniversary of the landmark ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 in which it was held that the prenuptial agreements could be given decisive weight when considering financial settlements upon divorce. To what extent does this case have implications for those seeking to protect their assets in the event of divorce and what has been the effect of the decision in practice?
Mr Granatino and Ms Radmacher (formerly Granatino) entered into a prenuptial agreement in 1998 at the instigation of the wealthy wife which provided that neither party was to acquire any benefit from the property of the other during the marriage or on its termination. At the time, the husband held a well-paid position in banking which he subsequently left to pursue an academic, but significantly less well-paid, career. Following the issue of divorce proceedings in 2007 the husband applied to the Court for it to determine a financial settlement even though the prenuptial agreement stated that the couple would waive any financial claims against each other in the event of their divorce. Initially, the Court held that the prenuptial agreement was defective and awarded the husband a capital award of £5.56 million plus £504,000 for housing in Germany and periodical payments of £70,000 per year for the couple’s two daughters. The wife successfully appealed and the Court of Appeal reduced the husband’s award in recognition of the “decisive weight” of the prenuptial agreement. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court who upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The decision in Radmacher does not mean that pre or postnuptial agreements are automatically enforceable. The law dealing with financial settlements upon divorce is set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and it is not possible for couples to oust the jurisdiction of the Court by entering into a prenuptial agreement or an agreement after the marriage (postnuptial). However, what the case of Radmacher did achieve was to set out the circumstances which will enhance or detract from the weight to be given to any agreement when considered alongside the ‘section 25’ factors of the MCA. For example, it is important that each party receives independent legal advice and that there is full disclosure of each party’s financial resources. It is also important that the agreement is entered into freely, in the absence of undue pressure or duress. It is therefore the role of the solicitor to carefully draft any proposed agreement to ensure that its terms will be followed by the Courts in future, should one party attempt to renege on the agreement and make an application to the court for a financial order.
The publicity surrounding Radmacher and prenuptial agreements in general has seen an increase in the number of enquiries and instructions received by the Matrimonial Team at Rogers & Norton from individuals seeking to protect their assets. The trend of people marrying later in life, sometimes for second or subsequent times, means that many individuals have pre-acquired assets which they bring to a marriage. Also, many individuals are keen to protect any future wealth such as inheritance from their family.
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements can include provisions regarding existing wealth and assets, future inheritance, gifts during the marriage and the practical and financial arrangements for children. Our Matrimonial Team is experienced in advising in relation to a proposed agreement, drafting both prenuptial and postnuptial agreements and advising upon agreements prepared by other solicitors to ensure they are clear and fair in light of the guidance set out in the Radmacher judgment.
If you are considering entering into a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement and would like some advice then please feel free to contact Sophie Key or Amy Walpole on 01603 675648 or email matrimonial@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Mr Granatino and Ms Radmacher (formerly Granatino) entered into a prenuptial agreement in 1998 at the instigation of the wealthy wife which provided that neither party was to acquire any benefit from the property of the other during the marriage or on its termination. At the time, the husband held a well-paid position in banking which he subsequently left to pursue an academic, but significantly less well-paid, career. Following the issue of divorce proceedings in 2007 the husband applied to the Court for it to determine a financial settlement even though the prenuptial agreement stated that the couple would waive any financial claims against each other in the event of their divorce. Initially, the Court held that the prenuptial agreement was defective and awarded the husband a capital award of £5.56 million plus £504,000 for housing in Germany and periodical payments of £70,000 per year for the couple’s two daughters. The wife successfully appealed and the Court of Appeal reduced the husband’s award in recognition of the “decisive weight” of the prenuptial agreement. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court who upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The decision in Radmacher does not mean that pre or postnuptial agreements are automatically enforceable. The law dealing with financial settlements upon divorce is set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and it is not possible for couples to oust the jurisdiction of the Court by entering into a prenuptial agreement or an agreement after the marriage (postnuptial). However, what the case of Radmacher did achieve was to set out the circumstances which will enhance or detract from the weight to be given to any agreement when considered alongside the ‘section 25’ factors of the MCA. For example, it is important that each party receives independent legal advice and that there is full disclosure of each party’s financial resources. It is also important that the agreement is entered into freely, in the absence of undue pressure or duress. It is therefore the role of the solicitor to carefully draft any proposed agreement to ensure that its terms will be followed by the Courts in future, should one party attempt to renege on the agreement and make an application to the court for a financial order.
The publicity surrounding Radmacher and prenuptial agreements in general has seen an increase in the number of enquiries and instructions received by the Matrimonial Team at Rogers & Norton from individuals seeking to protect their assets. The trend of people marrying later in life, sometimes for second or subsequent times, means that many individuals have pre-acquired assets which they bring to a marriage. Also, many individuals are keen to protect any future wealth such as inheritance from their family.
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements can include provisions regarding existing wealth and assets, future inheritance, gifts during the marriage and the practical and financial arrangements for children. Our Matrimonial Team is experienced in advising in relation to a proposed agreement, drafting both prenuptial and postnuptial agreements and advising upon agreements prepared by other solicitors to ensure they are clear and fair in light of the guidance set out in the Radmacher judgment.
If you are considering entering into a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement and would like some advice then please feel free to contact Sophie Key or Amy Walpole on 01603 675648 or email matrimonial@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Guarantor’s signature not all that it seems
A recent High Court decision has given a helpful reminder of how a signed and witnessed Guarantee may not be worth the paper it’s written on.
This was on the basis of “undue influence” and because the defendant had not intended to sign a guarantee - the defence of “non est factum”.
The Backgound
For those intending to take personal guarantees - follow the guidance laid down in Court decisions; that will generally require the involvement of lawyers.
The narrow message for those who have signed guarantees is that the circumstances can in some exceptional cases provide a defence; of course the best advice is still never to sign any document without reading and understanding it first.
If you would like to discuss this article, or any other matter relating to disputed guarantees or other contract issues please contact John Cadywould on 01603 675629, or e-mail jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.
This was on the basis of “undue influence” and because the defendant had not intended to sign a guarantee - the defence of “non est factum”.
- Undue influence - where a relationship exists between two parties with “trust and confidence, reliance, dependence or vulnerability on the one hand, and ascendancy, domination or control on the other”.
- Non est factum - where the document was fundamentally different to what the Defendant intended to sign; and crucially that he had not himself been negligent in connection with this.
The Backgound
The Defendant had been a company director. He often witnessed the signatures of fellow directors on Leases. He had to resign from the board but was kept on as an employee.
The company’s landlords knew that the company was in difficulty and were insisting on a personal guarantee by a director of the company before granting a new Lease.
One of the remaining directors of the company got the Defendant to sign the guarantee page.
The Court’s decision
There was a presumption of undue influence. As an employee he should not have been asked to sign the guarantee until he had either taken or clearly rejected an opportunity to take independent legal advice.
Crucially the Court held that the landlord was deemed to be aware -had “constructive knowledge” -of the undue influence. It knew that the company was in trouble yet failed to carry out checks to ensure that the Defendant was aware of the risks.
For good measure the Court was also satisfied that the Defendant had been tricked into signing as a guarantor thinking that all he was doing was witnessing somebody else’s signature. In view of the history of him witnessing signatures the Court held that he had not been negligent. The “non est factum” defence therefore also succeeded.
And the message?
For those intending to take personal guarantees - follow the guidance laid down in Court decisions; that will generally require the involvement of lawyers.
The narrow message for those who have signed guarantees is that the circumstances can in some exceptional cases provide a defence; of course the best advice is still never to sign any document without reading and understanding it first.
If you would like to discuss this article, or any other matter relating to disputed guarantees or other contract issues please contact John Cadywould on 01603 675629, or e-mail jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
DIGITAL LEGACIES’ ARE ON THE RISE
When it comes to making a Will, it is quite likely that you will think long and hard about whom you wish to inherit your home, your money and your personal possessions. However, have you ever considered whom you would like to benefit from your digital assets which can include: films, videos, music, e-books and Apps which now are more frequently being stored with the assistance of on-line ‘Cloud’ services.
Recent research carried out by the Centre for Creative and Social Technology (CAST) at the University of London for their ‘Cloud Generation’ report found that just over 1 in 10 of 2,000 British people surveyed had included, or planned to include, internet passwords in their Wills in a trend that CAST have labeled ‘Digital Inheritance’.
With more and more of our data being saved on-line by making use of services run by remote computers, known as ‘Clouds’, rather than being saved direct to a PC, this is an area which is likely to increase over the coming years. However, unfortunately, it is also open to abuse should your security passwords fall into the wrong hands!
Tom Lawrence, Partner and Head of the Wills and Probate Team at Rogers & Norton, said “The reliance placed by most of us on all things technological is showing no signs of slowing down. I am finding more often that clients are looking for sensible solutions to protect on-line assets for themselves and their families in the future. This can be as simple as keeping an up-to-date schedule of internet passwords and usernames with their Will, which can then be stored securely”.
If you would like to discuss this article, or any other matter relating to Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning, please contact Tom Lawrence on 01603 675610, or e-mail tl@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Recent research carried out by the Centre for Creative and Social Technology (CAST) at the University of London for their ‘Cloud Generation’ report found that just over 1 in 10 of 2,000 British people surveyed had included, or planned to include, internet passwords in their Wills in a trend that CAST have labeled ‘Digital Inheritance’.
With more and more of our data being saved on-line by making use of services run by remote computers, known as ‘Clouds’, rather than being saved direct to a PC, this is an area which is likely to increase over the coming years. However, unfortunately, it is also open to abuse should your security passwords fall into the wrong hands!
Tom Lawrence, Partner and Head of the Wills and Probate Team at Rogers & Norton, said “The reliance placed by most of us on all things technological is showing no signs of slowing down. I am finding more often that clients are looking for sensible solutions to protect on-line assets for themselves and their families in the future. This can be as simple as keeping an up-to-date schedule of internet passwords and usernames with their Will, which can then be stored securely”.
If you would like to discuss this article, or any other matter relating to Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning, please contact Tom Lawrence on 01603 675610, or e-mail tl@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Friday, October 14, 2011
The pitfalls of owning property jointly with another
The law is “double-Dutch”: Geoffrey Boycott
The pitfalls of owning property jointly with another
This week has seen former England cricketer and well-known Yorkshireman, Geoffrey Boycott, appear at the High Court in London expressing his view that the law surrounding joint ownership of property is unclear. Mr Justice Vos hearing the case himself acknowledged the “obscurity” of property law which dates back 300 years.
The case centres around Boycott’s purchase in 1996 of a three-bedroomed property overlooking Poole Harbour in the millionaires’ resort of Sandbanks, Dorset. The property was purchased for £450,000 and earlier this year was valued at £3 million. Boycott purchased the property with his then partner, Anne Wyatt, and it was put into their joint names as ‘joint tenants’. When property is owned as joint tenants upon the death of one owner their half share will automatically pass to the other. This is commonly referred to as the ‘rule of survivorship’. This type of joint ownership is usually preferred by married or cohabiting couples as it provides security on death for the surviving spouse/partner which is particularly important where there are children of the family.
The alternative to owning a property as joint tenants is to own it as ‘tenants in common’. As a tenant in common it is open to you to make provision in your Will for your share to pass on your death to a third party. In the absence of a Will the rules of Intestacy apply which may result in your share passing to one or more prescribed family members which may not be what you want. For example, if you remain married your share could pass to your spouse, even if you are separated.
Purchasing a property as joint tenants is not unchangeable. It is open to variation by either owner. By serving a ‘Notice of Severance’ upon a joint owner it can be changed to a ‘tenancy in common’, giving one party the option of leaving their half share to a third party under the terms of their Will in the event of their death.
This fact came as somewhat of a shock to Geoffrey Boycott when, in 2009 on the death of his former partner, he discovered that she had two years earlier unilaterally changed the joint ownership to a tenancy in common and had bequeathed her half share of the property to her niece. It is Mr Boycott’s case that he and Ms Wyatt had agreed that upon their deaths their respective shares would pass to the other. He says that had he known that the ownership could be altered he would never have bought the property with Ms Wyatt, who had continued to live in the property rent-free.
To change the ownership of a property from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common one party must ‘serve’ upon the other a Notice of Severance in accordance with section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 196 of that Act sets out the method of ‘service’ which essentially means sending a written document to the co-owner at their last known home or business address. It need not be acknowledged by the co-owner.
In Mr Boycott’s case, in which he is making a claim against his solicitors who dealt with the purchase, he claims that it was a “huge surprise” to him to discover on Ms Wyatt’s death that she had unilaterally changed the ownership of the property to a tenancy in common and had left her share to her niece.
This case highlights the importance of fully understanding the implications of owning property jointly with another, particularly in the event of the death of one party or the breakdown of the relationship.
If you require advice regarding financial and property matters as a result of the breakdown of your relationship or protecting your assets when entering into marriage or a relationship then please contact Sophie Key or Amy Walpole in our Matrimonial Department on 01603 675648 or email matrimonial@rogers-norton.co.uk.
If you would like to discuss the preparation of a Will then please contact Tom Lawrence or Louisa Mawbey in our Private Client Department on 01603 666001 or email web@rogers-norton.co.uk.
If you are purchasing a property in joint names and require a conveyancer and advice in relation to joint ownership then please contact Hayley George in our Residential Conveyancing Department on 01603 675623 or email hlg@rogers-norton.co.uk.
The pitfalls of owning property jointly with another
This week has seen former England cricketer and well-known Yorkshireman, Geoffrey Boycott, appear at the High Court in London expressing his view that the law surrounding joint ownership of property is unclear. Mr Justice Vos hearing the case himself acknowledged the “obscurity” of property law which dates back 300 years.
The case centres around Boycott’s purchase in 1996 of a three-bedroomed property overlooking Poole Harbour in the millionaires’ resort of Sandbanks, Dorset. The property was purchased for £450,000 and earlier this year was valued at £3 million. Boycott purchased the property with his then partner, Anne Wyatt, and it was put into their joint names as ‘joint tenants’. When property is owned as joint tenants upon the death of one owner their half share will automatically pass to the other. This is commonly referred to as the ‘rule of survivorship’. This type of joint ownership is usually preferred by married or cohabiting couples as it provides security on death for the surviving spouse/partner which is particularly important where there are children of the family.
The alternative to owning a property as joint tenants is to own it as ‘tenants in common’. As a tenant in common it is open to you to make provision in your Will for your share to pass on your death to a third party. In the absence of a Will the rules of Intestacy apply which may result in your share passing to one or more prescribed family members which may not be what you want. For example, if you remain married your share could pass to your spouse, even if you are separated.
Purchasing a property as joint tenants is not unchangeable. It is open to variation by either owner. By serving a ‘Notice of Severance’ upon a joint owner it can be changed to a ‘tenancy in common’, giving one party the option of leaving their half share to a third party under the terms of their Will in the event of their death.
This fact came as somewhat of a shock to Geoffrey Boycott when, in 2009 on the death of his former partner, he discovered that she had two years earlier unilaterally changed the joint ownership to a tenancy in common and had bequeathed her half share of the property to her niece. It is Mr Boycott’s case that he and Ms Wyatt had agreed that upon their deaths their respective shares would pass to the other. He says that had he known that the ownership could be altered he would never have bought the property with Ms Wyatt, who had continued to live in the property rent-free.
To change the ownership of a property from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common one party must ‘serve’ upon the other a Notice of Severance in accordance with section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 196 of that Act sets out the method of ‘service’ which essentially means sending a written document to the co-owner at their last known home or business address. It need not be acknowledged by the co-owner.
In Mr Boycott’s case, in which he is making a claim against his solicitors who dealt with the purchase, he claims that it was a “huge surprise” to him to discover on Ms Wyatt’s death that she had unilaterally changed the ownership of the property to a tenancy in common and had left her share to her niece.
This case highlights the importance of fully understanding the implications of owning property jointly with another, particularly in the event of the death of one party or the breakdown of the relationship.
If you require advice regarding financial and property matters as a result of the breakdown of your relationship or protecting your assets when entering into marriage or a relationship then please contact Sophie Key or Amy Walpole in our Matrimonial Department on 01603 675648 or email matrimonial@rogers-norton.co.uk.
If you would like to discuss the preparation of a Will then please contact Tom Lawrence or Louisa Mawbey in our Private Client Department on 01603 666001 or email web@rogers-norton.co.uk.
If you are purchasing a property in joint names and require a conveyancer and advice in relation to joint ownership then please contact Hayley George in our Residential Conveyancing Department on 01603 675623 or email hlg@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
R&N Business Workshops
Rogers and Norton solicitors are delighted to announce an Autumn series of practical workshops, providing a guaranteed 100 top tips for you and your business. Each workshop will last for 1 hour commencing at 4.30 pm, and will be followed by light refreshments.
Tuesday 1 November 2011: Being Prepared for difficult times in business and the Rogers and Norton Survival Guide.
Our speakers will discuss issues ranging from employment contracts to contracts with your suppliers and customers, key terms of business, business opportunities, cash flow and dealing with HMRC.
Tuesday 8 November 2011: Tips to Recover Bad Debts
Following on from our 1st workshop, we will highlight some practical debt recovery points and how to use the insolvency process as a tool to recover bad debts, to include suing directors personally of debtor companies personally. Our workshop will also look at Retention of Title claims.
Tuesday 22 November 2011: Directors Liabilities and Duties - how to stay out of trouble!
In these difficult times, it is expected that more claims will be made against directors. We have seen an increase in claims for unlawful dividends (some going back to 2004), breach of duties and in Directors Disqualification Proceedings. In this workshop, we will update you on your duties and liabilities as directors and company secretaries, and the transactions and management issues that Insolvency Practitioners investigate together with the Insolvency Service.
Tuesday 29 November 2011: Employment Update
As the year comes to an end, our specialist employment Partner Phil Kerridge will provide a practical list of employment issues arising from 2011 and predict the potential changes in 2012. This will be a must attend session for HR Managers and directors.
Tuesday 13 December 2011: Construction Act - the new one!
Our last session for 2011 will focus on the key changes to the Act and early developments, together with an update on other developments relating to letters of intent, experts and ADR. The session will be aimed at Employers, Contractors, Developers, Architects, Surveyors and Consultants.
Please complete the online booking form here to reserve your place(s).
In 2012, we will be holding seminars on Buying and Selling a Business, Intellectual Property Rights (exploiting and protecting), Company Law and Property updates. Please also add any additional workshops and seminars you would like us to hold.
We look forward to seeing you at our workshops.
Tuesday 1 November 2011: Being Prepared for difficult times in business and the Rogers and Norton Survival Guide.
Our speakers will discuss issues ranging from employment contracts to contracts with your suppliers and customers, key terms of business, business opportunities, cash flow and dealing with HMRC.
Tuesday 8 November 2011: Tips to Recover Bad Debts
Following on from our 1st workshop, we will highlight some practical debt recovery points and how to use the insolvency process as a tool to recover bad debts, to include suing directors personally of debtor companies personally. Our workshop will also look at Retention of Title claims.
Tuesday 22 November 2011: Directors Liabilities and Duties - how to stay out of trouble!
In these difficult times, it is expected that more claims will be made against directors. We have seen an increase in claims for unlawful dividends (some going back to 2004), breach of duties and in Directors Disqualification Proceedings. In this workshop, we will update you on your duties and liabilities as directors and company secretaries, and the transactions and management issues that Insolvency Practitioners investigate together with the Insolvency Service.
Tuesday 29 November 2011: Employment Update
As the year comes to an end, our specialist employment Partner Phil Kerridge will provide a practical list of employment issues arising from 2011 and predict the potential changes in 2012. This will be a must attend session for HR Managers and directors.
Tuesday 13 December 2011: Construction Act - the new one!
Our last session for 2011 will focus on the key changes to the Act and early developments, together with an update on other developments relating to letters of intent, experts and ADR. The session will be aimed at Employers, Contractors, Developers, Architects, Surveyors and Consultants.
Please complete the online booking form here to reserve your place(s).
In 2012, we will be holding seminars on Buying and Selling a Business, Intellectual Property Rights (exploiting and protecting), Company Law and Property updates. Please also add any additional workshops and seminars you would like us to hold.
We look forward to seeing you at our workshops.
R&N
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
George Osborne announces Employment Law Reforms
The Government yesterday announced the two key changes that they intend to introduce to encourage employers to recruit new staff with effect from April 2012. Firstly, the intention is to increase the period of continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim from one to two years. Secondly, fees are to be introduced for the issuing of Tribunal claims. Both of these have been widely predicted for several months.
Whether either of these changes is likely to have the desired effect is debatable according to the Firm’s Head of Employment Law, Phil Kerridge.
“Based on previous statistics, the increase of the period from one to two years will effect about 5% of cases, so on the face of it that reduction is not as significant as you might expect.
Set against that, it has to be remembered that the increase will have no bearing on discrimination cases, which will continue to have no requirements for any continuity of service. Bearing in mind the recent abolition of the default retirement age, I can see a significant increase in age discrimination claims, so I am not convinced that what has been proposed will be sufficient to stimulate employers into recruiting new staff.
Whether the payment of a fee will deter potential claimants remains to be seen, although it should certainly discourage the more speculative claims.”
If you wish to discuss the proposed changes or any other employment law issue, please contact Phil on 01603 675603 or at pnk@ogers-norton.co.uk. If you wish to subscribe to Phil’s monthly newsletter, please click here.
Whether either of these changes is likely to have the desired effect is debatable according to the Firm’s Head of Employment Law, Phil Kerridge.
“Based on previous statistics, the increase of the period from one to two years will effect about 5% of cases, so on the face of it that reduction is not as significant as you might expect.
Set against that, it has to be remembered that the increase will have no bearing on discrimination cases, which will continue to have no requirements for any continuity of service. Bearing in mind the recent abolition of the default retirement age, I can see a significant increase in age discrimination claims, so I am not convinced that what has been proposed will be sufficient to stimulate employers into recruiting new staff.
Whether the payment of a fee will deter potential claimants remains to be seen, although it should certainly discourage the more speculative claims.”
If you wish to discuss the proposed changes or any other employment law issue, please contact Phil on 01603 675603 or at pnk@ogers-norton.co.uk. If you wish to subscribe to Phil’s monthly newsletter, please click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
