Rogers and Norton Solicitors

Nancy and others

2012-02-08T12:21:00.000Z

The High Court has recently thrownout a libel claim brought by Nancy Dell’Olio against the Daily Mail. A double pagespread under the catchy heading “Return of the Man Eater” referred to herrelationship with Sir Trevor Nunn.

In any libel claim the Claimant hasto specify the allegedly defamatory meaning contained in the words used. The Claimant’s first attempt was that theymeant she is “a serial gold digger andhas deliberately set out to snare herself a wealthy man by making theiradulterous affair public thereby destroying his marriage for her own personal gain”. Sincethe article had itself pointed out that Sir Trevor Nunn’s marriage had alreadybroken down and that it was him pursuing her, not the other way around, that allegedmeaning was abandoned in favour of “aserial gold digger who cynically seeks out relationships with men not for genuineemotional reasons but because they are millionaires and therefore capable of fundingher conspicuously lavish and ostentatious lifestyle”.

A libel claim can only go forwardfor decision by a jury if the judge holds that the article was at least “capable of substantially affecting (ortending to affect) in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towardsthis Claimant”. The article must be read in a reasonable, not strained,way, and read as a whole – not just the headline and not cherry picking out ofcontext. It is not enough to say that by someperson or another the words might be understood in a defamatory way. The judge has to borrow the mindset of the hypothetical reasonable reader who istaken be representative of all likely readers of the publication.

I always smile at the Court’s approach to thisnotional being. He is “not naïve but heis not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read animplication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount ofloose thinking but he must be treated as a man who is not avid for scandal andsomeone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where othernon-defamatory meanings are available”.

The Court’s Decision

The Judge found the article “unflattering and even insulting”- but heldthat the references to lifestyle, money and wealth did not pass “the threshold of seriousness required if apublication is to be capable of being defamatory”. The article was simply notcapable of bearing any defamatory meaning, and there was no further decision tobe made on this at a full jury trial.

Comment

The case is a useful insight into the judicialapproach to the world of celebrity spats, and the workings of the filters builtinto the litigation process. Not every aggrieved celebrity is always entitledto take her case all the way to a costly trial. Both the defendant (even theDaily Mail) and the public purse need protection from the continued pursuit oflitigation which is doomed to fail.

For further information inconnection with our libel and commercial disputes practice and the possible useof Conditional Fee Agreements in these areas please contact JohnCadywould on 01603 675629 or at jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Crime will not pay

2012-01-31T10:01:00.001Z

CICA Scheme is to be overhauled. Criminals will only be able to claim compensation for being victims of crime in "exceptional circumstances", under proposals by the justice secretary, Mr Ken Clarke. This if after the annual costs of the taxpayer funded scheme trebled to nearly £300m since 1997.

The proposed reforms include:

Criminals to contribute more towards the scheme. Payment of "victim surcharges" by more offenders, and higher fines for driving offences, will it is hoped raise £50m for victims.
To stop criminals claiming for injuries and psychological damage.
Claims for minor injuries under the scheme for people in England, Wales and Scotland would also be restricted under the plans.
A person with a criminal record will only be able to claim compensation in exceptional circumstances. This could include, for example, a minor offender who is very seriously injured or a criminal who prevents someone else being attacked.

Over the past decade, 20,000 people with criminal records have been paid more than £75m, including a rapist and a person convicted of two killings.

R&N 30th Anniversary Charity Ball

2012-01-19T10:08:00.001Z

We are delighted to announce our 30th Birthday Celebration on Saturday 2nd June 2012 exactly 30 years to the day from when we first opened our doors.

Our 30th Birthday Ball will be held in a grand traditional Marquee at the stunning location of Colney Hall, Norwich.

This promises to be one of the most lavish events Norwich has ever seen.

The design & decor will be spectacular and Brasteds have been employed to create, prepare and serve an exquisite 4 course dinner.

Invitations will follow in the next few weeks. However, if you would like to reserve tickets please contact me as soon as possible as these are sure to be in great demand. Tickets are priced at £60 per person & will include a Champagne Reception, a 4 course meal with wine, coffee & mints & live music.

All profits & proceeds will benefit Nelsons Journey - a local charity helping Norfolk children cope with bereavement.

Graham Knights
Practice Manager
Rogers & Norton

gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk

01603 675618

Rogers and Norton stage special pantomime party for bereaved children

2012-01-19T09:56:00.000Z

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_solicitors_rogers_and_norton_stage_special_pantomime_party_for_bereaved_children_1_1179100

Directors Liabilities and Duties - how to stay out of trouble!

2012-01-06T10:56:00.000Z

We are hosting a FREE workshop entitled "Directors Liabilities and Duties - how to stay out of trouble!" at our office at Willow Lane, Norwich on Tues 10th Jan 2012 at 4:30pm. If you would like to attend please email Simon Kerrison.

When and how should Court assess chances in Personal Injury claims?

2011-12-22T15:57:00.001Z

The Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a diamond core driller and as part of his employment was provided with the use of a company van. For some time the van doors were defective and as a result the Claimant was required to squeeze through the gap between the driver and passenger seats, move the content of the storage area of the van to the side, slide two 25 litre barrels of water to the side and then push the van doors open.

Whilst undertaking this task on the 16th March 2006 the Claimant suffered a significant prolapse of the disc in his back at L4/5 which despite surgery left the Claimant with substantial symptoms, permanently restricting his day to day activities and rendering him permanently unfit to work.

It was agreed medical evidence that the Claimant was suffering from a significant prolapse and that as a consequence he was left with a permanent disability and an inability to return to work.

The issues for the court to decide were the extent to which the Defendant employer was liable to the Claimant and if liable the extent to which the agreed injuries were caused by the negligence of the employer.

Liability settled just before trial with the employer finally accepting liability with a very small reduction for contributory negligence to reflect the risk of litigating the case before a Judge.

The issue of causation went to a hearing before the Norwich County Court were the Judge heard evidence from two expert orthopaedic surgeons. For the Claimant the opinion was that but for the accident this injury would not have occurred and even if the Claimant has suffered a prolapse it would have been very unlikely to have been as severe and without the significant consequences which occurred after the injury. For the Defendant the expert gave a view that the injuries would have occurred in any event within two years given the Claimants heavy work and smoking and that when the symptoms occurred they would have more likely than not been the same. However in cross examination the Defendant's expert made numerous concessions as to the percentage chance of the the symptoms being either:

As severe
Of similar nature
With the same effects on work and
With the same urological consequences

As a result the Judge at first instance heard submissions from the Claimant that when assessing what would have happen in the future but for the negligent act that he should take account of the various risks and chances in particular given the view of Lord Diplock in Mallett v Mcdonall [1970] AC166 which stated :

The role of the court in making an assessment of damages which depends upon its view as to what will be and what would have been is to be contrasted with its ordinary function in civil actions of determining what did happen in the past a court decides on the balance of probabilities. Anything that is more probable than not it treats as certain. But in assessing damages which depend upon its view as to what will happen in the future or would have happened in the future if something had not happened in the past, the court must make an estimate as to what are the chances that a particular thing will or would have happened and reflect those chances, whether they are more or less than even, in the amount of damages which it awards.

The Defendants sort at first instance to distinguish these appeal cases as only relating to a claim involving fatal injuries and that a judge should decide all matters on the "balance of probabilities" which is the test used by the court when addressing matters of past fact.

At first instance HHJ Curl sitting in the Norwich County Court held that the Defendants’ medical view was correct and applied the balance of probabilities test. As a result because the view of the Defendants’ expert was that it was over a 50% chance, although nowhere near certain, that the Claimant would suffer the same symptoms the Claimant should only recover compensation for two years. This was the period over which the Claimant would have developed the same symptoms in any event according to the Defendants’ expert.

The Claimants appealed on the ground that the Judge did not correctly apply the law which required him to reflect the risks of various possible outcomes, to include never suffering symptoms to suffering similar symptoms, when assessing the basis on which the Claimant should recover damages. As such the initial trial judge when accepting the Defendants view had incorrectly failed to take account of the concessions made by the Defendants’ expert in cross examination.

The Court of Appeal heard representations from both parties and held that the Judge at first instance had failed to apply the correct test and should when assessing future loss reflect the risk and chances of a future event happening as established in Mallet v McGonagall 1970 and to that extent the appeal Judges were with the Claimant. However the Court felt they could still uphold the Trial Judge's finding of two years by following an authority of Kenth v Heimdale Hotel Investments Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1283 which held that one way of assessing risks and chances is to apply an acceleration which was an acknowledged broad brush approach. As such the Claimant received damages for a two year period.

COMMENT

This is undoubtedly a disappointing result for the Claimant who on the one hand succeeded on the legal issue before the Appeal Court yet then failed to recover any increase in damages as a result of the Judges upholding the finding on acceleration, whilst recognising the Norwich County Court wrongly applied the law. It is difficult to believe that had the Judge in Norwich at first instance correctly applied the law that he would have awarded the Claimant the same two year acceleration if he had factored in the various risks, which he failed to do when applying the test of balance of probabilities, which he should have done. As a result it is disappointing that the Court of Appeal, having found for the Claimant on the law, did not then allow what the Claimant argues would be more appropriate damages.

However the case demonstrates the importance of, when assessing future losses, considering all of the events that may or may not happen before a Court awards or solicitors agree damages. Whilst the acceleration approach of awarding damages for a period of 2, 3 or 10 years (as an example) may be correct and regularly applied this must be done on an analysis of the evidence and if appropriate an assessment of the future risks rather than because on the balance of probabilities it is found.

Inevitably whilst we were disappointed that the Claimant recovered no further damages, the case did prove a very important legal point. It also demonstrates that at a time when lawyers are challenged for the use of No Win No Fee agreements, if used properly they are a significant benefit to Claimants. Indeed it is likely that without a system which allows success fees in No Win No Fee agreements to be recovered this case may not have been advanced. It is therefore very disappointing that the current government are seeking to remove the recoverability of success fees which underpin the risks lawyers take in substantial cases such as the one under discussion.

If you wish to discuss this article or the current proposals to change the recoverability of success fee or discuss any possible claim please contact Mark Hambling mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk

22nd December 2011

Heights to Haircuts!!!

2011-12-22T15:52:00.000Z

Mark Hambling, Partner, Law Society Accredited Personal Injury Lawyer and Association of Personal Injury Lawyers Senior Litigator, has recently concluded an interesting case which saw the Claimant make an interesting and enforced career change.

The Claimant worked as a scaffolder and suffered a significant head injury when struck by a falling metal scaffold sleeve. The facts, in the absence of the serious injury, could form the basis of a comedy sketch. The Claimant’s colleague was Polish and had a tendency to swear on site for no apparent reason, usually in Polish and therefore his language was generally ignored. However on the day in question he dropped a metal scaffold sleeve and rather than shouting "look out" he swore and was unfortunately ignored. Tragically the sleeve struck the Claimant on the head causing a fractured skull, soft tissue injuries to the spine and neurological symptoms such as problems with memory and learning.

The Claimant required surgery to elevate his depressed skull fracture and was in hospital remarkably for only 7 days before his discharge to be monitored by out patients.

The insurers of the scaffolding company admitted liability for the unsafe system of work which was used to raise the scaffold fittings to the construction. Despite the scaffold company entering liquidation during the litigation the claim was pursued against the company, who had relevant insurance, with permission of the Court.

The only issue to determine was the extent of injury caused by the accident, the value of that injury and the losses flowing from the injury. Medical evidence was necessary from a Neurologist, Neurosurgeon, Neuro Psychiatrist, and Plastic Surgeon. It was established that the Claimant had suffered a depressed fracture to the skull which had left a permanent cosmetic appearance. He had also suffered trauma to the brain which would again cause minor permanent problems with memory and learning as well as interaction. His soft tissue injuries to the spine which were caused by the compressive force of the metal sleeve healed over a two year period. However psychologically it was established that he could never work in construction again and would have to consider a change of career.

The Claimant had some pre accident experience as a hairdresser having trained with Nicky Clarke, although he had given this up to train as a scaffolder and earn a higher salary. The Claimant therefore returned to the hairdressing trade once he was fit to work. He was however starting from scratch again and despite efforts in some top London and regional salons and a summer of experience working on fashion shoots and parades in Ibiza he was struggling to hold down a position and had lost several positions.
Our involvement was to present a proveable argument comparing his potential earnings as a hairdresser and scaffolder, analysing when the two would, if ever, reach parity. After numerous statements from past and present employers and a detailed review of the hairdressing opportunities as well as considering how the Claimant would have faired but for the accident as a scaffolder in one of the worst recessions ever, the claim settled at a round table meeting with the Defendants at a figure substantially ahead of £200,000.

COMMENT
This case raised all the issues I could expect. Whilst liability was resolved in the Claimant’s favour a detailed knowledge of the Health & Safety at Work legislation was required to prove this. The case had the added complication of an insolvent Defendant which required a successful application to the Court to allow the case to proceed.

In relation to the injuries a thorough understanding of the medical case was needed to enable the right experts to be selected from our panel of the best available. What was then required was the time and experience to investigate the pre and post accident work options to present a case on value to support the past and future loss of earning as well as providing for the future risks, in particular the inability to return to scaffolding if he never achieves parity of earnings as a hairdresser.

The case highlights the need to use an experienced Personal Injury Lawyer to pursue your claim if you unfortunately suffer an injury. There are a variety of potential claims within each case which will require consideration and the lawyer instructed must investigate these thoroughly to ensure the Claimant achieves the right level of compensation.

If you wish to discuss this article or have a potential claim you wish Rogers & Norton to advise upon please contact Mark Hambling on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Your Terms or Mine ?

2011-11-23T16:39:00.000Z

Business dealings are rarely documented in a way that lawyers would like. It is also true to say that if commercial people tried to run their business to suit the lawyers, business would grind to a halt.

The Court of Appeal decision in Tech Data and Amphenol is a good illustration of how things can go wrong.

Tech Data were part of the supply chain for Rolls-Royce engines.

They sent a parts order to Amphenol. This was expressly subject to Tech Data’s standard terms and conditions, including tight delivery and quality requirements.
Amphenol wrote back accepting the order but referring to their own standard terms and conditions which limited their liability for any delay and quality problems.
Amphenol then delivered the parts, which Tech Data accepted.
Tech Data later complained of serious delay and quality issues.

Whose terms and conditions governed the contract?

The appeal decision was that Amphenol’s purported acceptance of the order, but on different terms, amounted to a counter-offer. This was then impliedly accepted by Tech Data when it took delivery. The contract came into existence at that moment - and on Amphenol’s terms. Tech Data’s claims failed.

This reflects the traditional legal outcome of this toing and froing of small print paperwork - that the contract is governed by the last terms and conditions to be supplied before the contract came into existence. It’s the “last shot” which counts. That outcome can only be displaced where there is cogent evidence that both parties intended to contract on a different basis. There was none in this case.

One practical difficulty is that this grandly titled “battle of the forms” is typically played out between busy purchase and sales department staff who may not appreciate its potential significance.

The message

If it is important that you only enter into contracts on your own terms and conditions (and why bother with them if is not?) then have a system in place which always :-

ensures that they are duly referred to in any order you or your colleagues place;
checks the wording of any purported acknowledgment or acceptance of your order.

If this is anything other than a clean acceptance of your order (with no different terms attached or endorsed or referred to) then :-

make it clear that there can be no deal until they confirm that the order is subject to your terms and conditions;
and refuse to accept delivery unless that is done;
or go ahead anyway - but in the knowledge that if things go wrong, you may not enjoy the protection you had carefully drafted into your business paperwork.

If you would like to discuss this article, or any other matter relating to disputed contract issues please contact John Cadywould on 01603 675629, or e-mail jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Estate Agents’ Sole Agency Commission

2011-11-18T09:38:00.000Z

The Court of Appeal has just handed down what can only be described as a mixed decision on the effect of the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the associated 1991 Regulations.

These require agents to explain terms such as “sole agency” and to provide details of when “remuneration” is payable. There is a useful definition of sole agency in the Regulations for agents to adopt in their contracts.

In this case the agreement did not include the statutory information in full. Significantly it did not include the necessary express reference to an obligation to pay remuneration if a sale contract were exchanged with a purchaser introduced by another agent during the period of the sole agency. Furthermore, despite being described as a “sole agency”, it included no express prohibition on dealing with another agent during the period of the contract.

The agent came up with three offers but the seller sold elsewhere using another agent. He paid their commission and was reluctant to meet the first agent’s claims under their “sole agency agreement”.

The Court’s decision

The agent’s claim failed in the High Court and failed again on appeal.

The majority found it unnecessary to decide whether the seller had acted in breach of his obligations under the contract, and was therefore liable to pay damages.
They held instead that “remuneration” in the statutory scheme covered damages in lieu of commission and that the agent had failed to comply with the requirement to give adequate particulars about the seller’s obligation to pay this. Merely to include the words “sole agency” was not sufficient.

In view of the breach of the statutory requirements, the sole agency agreement could not be enforced without a Court Order, and the Court had power to dismiss or reduce the agent’s claim. In this case the claim was dismissed as the Court was satisfied that the seller was prejudiced by the absence of the information required by statute.

The message

Agents who wish to act on a sole agency basis should, if they are not already doing so, ensure compliance with the statutory requirements by using the full statutory wording wherever possible, or otherwise ensuring that their agreements comply with the information requirements in full.

If you would like to discuss this article, or any other matter relating to disputed agency or other contract issues please contact John Cadywould on 01603 675629, or e-mail jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.

“One of the best and most interesting CPD events I have ever attended”.

2011-10-28T09:29:00.000+01:00

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.

Prenuptial Agreements:Radmacher - one year on

2011-10-21T15:33:00.000+01:00

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.

Guarantor’s signature not all that it seems

2011-10-21T14:22:00.000+01:00

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”.

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.

That second hurdle generally trips you up if you simply sign a document without reading it first.

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.

DIGITAL LEGACIES’ ARE ON THE RISE

2011-10-18T10:56:00.000+01:00

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.

The pitfalls of owning property jointly with another

2011-10-14T14:12:00.000+01:00

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.

R&N Business Workshops

2011-10-05T12:31:00.001+01:00

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.

R&N

George Osborne announces Employment Law Reforms

2011-10-04T15:05:00.001+01:00

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.

Top Legal Directory praises expanding Rogers & Norton

2011-09-27T14:18:00.001+01:00

Rogers & Norton has gained major recognition in this year’s edition of the Legal 500 for its high quality service and expertise.

The Legal 500 is acknowledged as the most widely used legal directory in the country, in which law firms are ranked in terms of their skills and performance.

The 2011 edition (published online at: www.legal500.com) highlights Norwich-based Rogers & Norton’s impressive credentials for providing expert legal advice to clients – regionally, nationally and internationally.

Richard Etheridge, Managing Partner and Head of the firm’s Corporate and Commercial Team, says “We are thoroughly delighted that, yet again, Rogers & Norton has received significant recognition for the calibre of its work and first-rate service. In what are undoubtedly tough economic times, we are encouraged by the fact that we have been able to further expand upon our already very talented team of lawyers. I think it goes to show that our commitment to offering a top quality service to our clients at reasonable cost is the right approach”.

He adds “Every year I have been at Rogers & Norton has been exciting and this year has proved to be no exception! Over the past 12 months we have been able to significantly strengthen our Property Team and increase the depth of our already highly experienced Private Client and Family Teams, whilst also promoting from within, which is always very encouraging. I am confident that 2012 will see us continuing to move further in the right direction”.
Rogers & Norton was founded in 1982 and is now a 12 Partner firm with more than 60 fee earners and support staff.
Rogers & Norton’s Commercial Litigation Team continues to flourish with John Cadywould, Peter Hastings and Phil Kerridge all receiving substantial recognition for having valuable experience and expertise, excellent tactical awareness, and are helpful and quick with advice. The recent expansion of the Team has seen the appointment of Jenna Phillips, who specialises in debt recovery.

Phil Kerridge, Head of the firm’s Employment Team, also gains recognition for offering pragmatic and practical advice to a strong base of employer clients.

Peter Hastings, described as an immense talent, is an expert in Directors’ disqualification cases and acts for most local Insolvency Practitioners. Peter has recently advised administrators on a £1.1 Million HMRC Excise Duty back claim and also a contractor’s £1.75 Million claim for fees following the termination of a project.
The firm’s Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Team continues to strengthen their reputation both locally and far beyond. Mark Hambling, who is a Senior Litigator with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a Personal Injury accredited specialist with the Law Society, and Tim Nobbs, are praised as being notably conscientious, with a practice spanning employers’ liability, public liability and RTA claims. Tim and mark are noted to have handled claims involving failed diagnosis in radiology, inadequate surgery, death in hospital and failed vasectomy.

The excellent, professional and compassionate advice of Amy Walpole, Partner and Head of the firm’s Family Team, is acknowledged. The team has expanded to include recently-appointed experienced Solicitor Sophie Key who has a strong expertise in children matters. Together they handle a stream of high-value divorce and cohabitee work. Amy is also a trained collaborative lawyer.
Newly-promoted Partner and Head of the Private Client Team, Tom Lawrence, and Catherine Hawdon, who are both members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, are noted for being technically up-to-speed, prompt with good business acumen and a pleasant demeanour. The Private Client Team continues to grow with the recent appointment of experienced Solicitor Louisa Mawbey. It is noted that four lawyers in the team are members of the Solicitors for the Elderly.
The Corporate and Commercial Team has again impressed with Richard Etheridge, the firm’s Managing Partner, at the helm. Richard is noted as being very approachable and constructive whilst delivering a high quality of service on corporate issues. The firm’s recent work includes company buy-backs, restructurings and the MBO of a local manufacturing firm.
The one-stop service offered by Bruce Faulkner, who heads the Commercial Property Team, continues to thrive in dealing with the sale, purchase and licensing of premises, including pubs and clubs around Norwich. Bruce is noted as having handled leases, including a 9,000 sq ft property in a prestigious office block in Norwich.
Meanwhile the Residential Property Team, headed by the well known and liked Marc Greig has seen a continued increase in good quality instructions which is bucking the trend of many of the firm’s competitors. Marc enjoys an enviable reputation with local builders and developers for his work. The firm continues to advise local businesses, landowners, public limited companies and pension schemes. The Property Team has increased in size, with the appointment of three new members.

R&N Newsflash: Construction Act 2009 - Good News or Bad ?

2011-08-30T09:20:00.005+01:00

Here it is at last, the “Construction Act 2009” will come into force on the 1 October 2011. Is it good news or bad news?
Let’s start at the beginning! It will apply to all construction contracts that are entered into on or after this date, and brings significant changes to the current regime in respect of payment and adjudication. Will it stop disgruntled parties running off to the Technology and Construction Court on matters of law in an attempt to delay payment? Will the cash flow? That’s the idea.

The introduction of this new legislation follows an extensive period of consultation by the Government on how to improve payment practices in the construction industry. It is therefore imperative that you are aware of the changes that are contained in the Construction Act 2009 and how it will affect your business.

Adjudication

There are mixed views on Adjudication. The intention of Adjudication was to keep projects and cash flowing. Yet, the TCC was busy dealing with issues on whether all material terms were recorded in writing, and of course other arguments. The main change that will impact on adjudication is that the scope of the Construction Act has been widened to include oral contracts, thereby removing jurisdictional challenges based on contracts not being in writing, or evidenced in writing. Is this a step in the right direction? I am not convinced, even allowing for the fact that Adjudicators are experienced and quite often senior barristers. I expect that there will be further disputes in proving that an oral contract exists, and what terms were agreed by the parties, and by whom.

Payment

We now have a Payment Notice, which should state the amount to be paid, and the basis for its calculation. There is no sanction if the paying party fails to issue the payment notice. This has now changed. If the party making payment (referred to as the “Payer”) fails to issue a payment notice within 5 days of the due date, then the application for payment may serve to be the payment notice by default. In this case, the payer will have to pay the notified sum, as contained in the application by the final date for payment.

We will also have a “pay less notice” in lieu of a withholding notice, which has to be served by the payer before the final date for payment. The content of a pay less notice requires careful consideration. The pay less notice allows the payer the opportunity to give notice of his intention to pay less than the notified sum, and must be served within a prescribed period before the final date for payment. Here, the payer must specify the amount he considers is due on the date the pay less notice is served. This affords the payer a second opportunity to value the works, whereas previously he could only notify the amount he intended to withhold from the amount due under the contract.

All parties will need to have terms of payment, understand them and then follow them! Good news or bad?!

Suspension rights

Under the old Act, a party could walk off site in the event of non-payment, subject to serving the correct notices. There were many cases on whether the contract had been repudiated. The threat often worked!

The Construction Act 2009 gives additional rights in respect of suspending the work for non-payment. These additional rights mean that the contractor now has the right to suspend part or all of his obligations under the contract, not just all. If the contractor elects to suspend the works, the contractor is now entitled to the payment of a reasonable amount in respect of costs and expenses he incurs as a result of the suspension.

Who does this Affect?

Employers, subcontractors, consultants all need to take action now. We all need to understand the new rules and revise procedures. Contracts need to be updated. Standard forms must comply. And this applies to Consultants too.

Actions

Have a written contract and understand and follow the terms. But, we all know, construction projects are not perfect. There will be sub-contracts, variations, extras and other terms not in writing. Take minutes of meetings, circulate them, use email to record an agreement, use standard forms where parties can tick boxes to confirm an action. Letters of Intent will help avoid such issues, but ensure their scope is limited, capped in value and include key terms.
There will be problems and I expect an initial flurry of litigation. My view is that it is a step in the right direction, although I am not convinced on adjudicating oral contracts! Do you think it has gone far enough? Residential contracts anyone?

For further information on the Construction Act 2009 and any construction issues, contact Peter Hastings 01603 666001 or ph@rogers-norton.co.uk.

R&N Employment Newsletter

2011-07-20T15:44:00.000+01:00

Rogers & Norton are pleased to announce the launch of its free “e–employment newsletter”, which goes live this month. The newsletter will come out ten times per year and is designed to provide general updates that are aimed at HR officers and owners and directors of SME businesses alike.

If you have not yet subscribed to the newsletter and would like to do so, please complete the sign up form by clicking the following link : http://www.topica.com/f/v.html?1700160817.1700102567.
If you require more specific advice on either the contents of the newsletter or any other aspect of employment law, please contact Phil Kerridge on 01603 675603 or email pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk.

ROGERS & NORTON

Shared parenting – a move in the right direction?

2011-06-20T15:35:00.000+01:00

On 17th June 2011 the Shared Parenting Orders Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Commons.

When, a child’s residence, formerly known as ‘custody,’ cannot be agreed by his/her parents, it will be determined by the Court. The Courts are governed by the Children Act 1989 and, whilst the Court’s paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, it will take into consideration various other factors to determine with which parent a child shall live including the child’s wishes and feelings, the capability of the parents to meet his/her needs and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. The Court does have the option to make a shared residence order where a child spends significant periods of time with each parent but typically, where a child’s place of residence is in dispute, the Court will be asked to specify with which parent the child shall live and, often, the level of contact s/he shall have with the non-resident parent. The Shared Parenting bill is seeking to change the way in which the Courts consider the arrangements for children.

The Bill was initially presented on 13th July 2010. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to ensure that, wherever possible, children benefit from the full involvement of both parents in their upbringing. A “shared parenting order” means an order providing for both parents to have a full involvement in the upbringing of a child particularly in respect of major long-term issues, and requiring that the child must spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents. This is to be distinguished from a shared residence order.
The presumption of shared parenting has been considered by the Family Justice Review in their interim report dated 31st March 2011. The Panel comments that currently the Court follows case law which sets out that it is almost always in the interests of a child whose parents are separated that he or she should have contact with the parent with whom the child is not living (Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 FLR 314). The Court will only depart from this presumption where the potential for harm to the child outweighs the benefit of parental contact.

Shared parenting legislation is increasingly common elsewhere in the world. Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states are examples. However, the Family Justice Review Panel considered evidence from Australia and Sweden in particular about the harm caused to children resulting from the conflict between parents where the legislation has created a presumption of shared time. It concluded that these countries have experienced difficulties in interpreting and implementing the legislation which goes against the aim of family lawyers and policy makers to keep disputes regarding children away from the Courts.

As a result of this evidence, the panel has concluded that no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents. It is recommended that the existing legislation should be amended to include a general statement of intent, to reinforce the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, alongside the need to protect the child from harm.

There are concerns that to adopt such a broad-brush approach will remove the current case-by-case approach which is tailored to the individual needs of the child. A presumption of shared parenting could move away from the current role of the Courts to make decisions in the best interests of children and may favour the best interests of the parents.

Sophie Key at Rogers & Norton comments " the principles of shared parenting would be beneficial to many families. That said, applying the presumption to all families could be detrimental to the welfare of some children – no two cases are the same, and the current legislation providing for every case to be considered on their individual factors is a much safer option. "

Whether the proposed shared parenting legislation comes into force remains to be seen but it would appear that the fight for children to have an equal relationship with both parents is as strong as ever.

Should you wish for any further information or advice on Children matters please contact Sophie Key on sok@rogers-norton.co.uk or 01603 675666.

Lone Workers Seminars

2011-06-08T15:38:00.010+01:00

May has been a busy month for Phil Kerridge as he presented two seminars on the Legal Implications of Employing Lone Workers on successive nights. Firstly, Phil took part in a seminar that was co – presented with OneStream, Sitex Orbis and NORCAS at the Forum in Norwich. The seminar examined an Employer’s general legal obligations towards employees who work alone.

The following night Phil made a presentation on the same subject to the Norfolk Association of Estate Agents at their branch meeting, which took place at Dunston Hall. On this occasion, the seminar was particularly focussed on the risks facing the Estate Agency industry.

Phil would be happy to speak to anybody who missed either of the above events but would like to discuss the possible ramifications of this issue for their business. He can be contacted on 01603 675603 or alternatively at pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk.

The importance of file notes for Surveyors and other professionals

2011-06-07T12:38:00.000+01:00

John Cadywould, partner in the firm's Commercial Dispute Resolution team, was recently invited to give a keynote presentation to the annual conference of the national agents/surveyors Brown & Co. The presentation focused on the practical importance for all professional advisors on keeping a proper written record of instructions received and advice given and in particular its relevance in the context of disputes arising between the professional and his client over the service or advice provided.

John Cadywould

When things go wrong between professional and client and a complaint or claim for professional negligence arises, then file notes become of crucial significance in the Court’s weighing of conflicting evidence of what was really said or done. Using examples from his experience and the reported cases John provided guidance to the delegates upon what he would recommend as best practice and took a number of questions on the practical and legal issues which can arise. John has many years’ experience and recognised expertise in a wide range of commercial dispute resolution and was ideally placed to provide the delegates with the benefit of his experience.

The presentation was part of Rogers & Norton’s ongoing commitment to offering clients and contacts practical legal guidance and added value business advice.

For more information please contact John Cadywould on 01603 675603 or email jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.

New Family Law Rules

2011-04-04T10:30:00.000+01:00

New Rules!

I hear you all ask what are the New Rules all about?

They are a reform which represents one of the most significant developments in Family Courts for years.

The theory is that the introduction of the new Family Procedure Rules 2010 (SI 2010 No 2955), which have effect from 6 April 2011, will provide a unified procedural code for family proceedings in the High Court, county courts and magistrates’ courts. The New Rules will replace all the existing rules and create a comprehensive and accessible source for all who come into contact with the family justice system. The majority of forms used in family proceedings have also been revised, many have been given a fresh look and tick box options are appearing on most forms. This will make the forms quicker to complete but complete with caution to ensure your tick does not end up in the wrong box!!

In practice the launch of the new rules are a minefield for family Practioners who have not been given access to all the new forms. Further, across the country County and Magistrate Courts are adopting their own policies as to when they will be enforcing the New Rules. This may be due to the fact that some Judges have been unable to enrol on courses concerning the new rules until later this year.
The previous rules should continue to be applied to proceedings that were commenced before 6th April 2011 but the first time on or after 6th April 2011 proceedings come before a Court the Court may direct how the Family Procedure Rules apply or disapply. The general presumption therefore for Family practitioners will be that the Family Proceedings Rules apply unless the Court directs otherwise under Practice Direction 36A.
The rules should not have a great impact on clients save for the introduction of the mandatory mediation assessments before making any application to the Court for disputes concerning children or finances.
The New Rules are structured to ensure that family court proceedings have a uniformed ethos relating to the form on which applications are made, timescales, costs, enforcement, and how evidence should be presented. These are just a few of the areas covered in the rules. The New Rules have also been written in a manner which is intended to be easier to decipher with less Latin terminology. Also, phrases such as an Ancillary Relief application have disappeared, now referred to as a Financial Order Application. The Divorce Petition is now called a Divorce/Dissolution/(judicial) separation Petition and Divorce Proceedings are referred to as an Application in Matrimonial Proceedings. The Family Proceedings Rules refer to applications and Petitions rather than Divorce like the Matrimonial Cause Act 1973. However, phrases such as Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute remain in the New Rules.
In conclusion, Family Practitioners know what to expect but can give no guarantees how the new rules will be enforced or accepted by different regional Courts!
For more information please contact Amy Walpole, Partner & Head of our family law department.

Are you ready for Mandatory Mediation from the 6th April?

2011-04-04T10:27:00.000+01:00

The Government has radically reformed the Family Law system to encourage people to take advantage of alternative sources of help and advice to resolve matters without involving expensive lawyers or Courts.

From 6 April 2011 new Court Rules makes it mandatory for separating and divorcing Couples to attend a Mediation Assessment meeting before making an application to Court, in relation to disputes regarding children and financial issues.

The Government's introduction of compulsory mediation awareness meetings means that no person can apply to the Court to seek the help of the Court to resolve their issues, unless they have attended a Mediation Assessment. There are of course exceptions in cases involving domestic abuse or child protection issues. Further, if mediation is not a workable option, for example one party refuses to take part in it; the case can still proceed to Court. If you have no issues to resolve and simply want to divorce and can reach a financial agreement without the intervention of formal Court proceedings, then you do not need to attend a Mediation Awareness meeting.

The thought process behind the introduction of these meetings is that in the longer term, successful mediation is more often than not cheaper and quicker than negotiations through solicitors or the Court process. Thus, this system ensures that this process is always considered before clients embark on an application to the Court.

However, in some regions there is a shortage of qualified mediators and one has to wonder if the Government has considered the impact of compulsory referrals to mediation on mediators - is the increased intake of referrals going to increase delays for clients?

Amy Walpole, Head of the Family Team at Rogers & Norton Solicitors comments “generally, all Resolution family solicitors will aim to achieve an agreed solution through negotiation and discussion because we all recognise that going to Court is stressful and expensive for our clients. Mediation and collaborative law are additional options which I always discuss with clients. However, these options are not suitable to all clients and reaching an agreement is not always possible without Court intervention. It is questionable whether these clients should then be forced to attend a Mediation Assessment which could delay proceedings and allow tension to increase between the parties. This is a controversial subject and there are swings and roundabouts depending on your client interest and needs. “

Some clients are apprehensive about engaging in the Mediation process as a mediator can provide information to the parties but not legal advice. This ensures that the Mediator remains neutral, and this is why people are encouraged to seek background support and advice from their independent solicitors during and at the conclusion of the mediation process.

If Mediation is not appropriate some people may wish to consider engaging in the Collaborative Law Process which allows a client to benefit from open negotiations by way of 4 way meetings with their partner or spouse and their legal representative. With the Collaborative approach both clients also benefit from receiving independent legal advice throughout the process.

For for information please contact Amy Walpole.

Breaking News from R&N

2011-03-30T12:56:00.001+01:00

Promotions as Rogers and Norton strengthens team

Partner Amy Walpole has been promoted to head of the firm's family department. Amy joined the firm in 2002 and qualified as a solicitor in 2003 before becoming a partner of the practice three years ago. Amy is highly experienced in advising clients on divorce, separation and ancillary relief matters.

amy.walpole@rogers-norton.co.uk

Tom Lawrence, previously an associate with the firm, has become a partner and head of the wills and probate department. Tom joined Rogers & Norton four years ago and specialises in wills, trusts, administration of estates and powers of attorney. The 2009 edition of the Legal 500 praised him for having “built a reputation for high quality and attentive service”.

tom.lawrence@rogers-norton.co.uk

Managing partner Richard Etheridge said: “We are delighted to announce these two promotions at Rogers & Norton because we attach great importance to nurturing and rewarding talent within our expert team. Tom and Amy have proved to be industrious, committed and highly able solicitors who we believe will play key roles in the future development and direction of our firm.”

Founded in 1982, Rogers & Norton has grown from two partners to 12 partners and now has more than 60 fee-earners and support staff. The firm is based in The Old Chapel, Willow Lane, Norwich.

For further information please contact Amy Walpole on 01603 675604 or Tom Lawrence on 01603 675610.

www.rogers-norton.co.uk

Rogers and Norton host Bribery Act seminar

2011-02-10T15:02:00.004Z

Rogers & Norton's Commercial Teams held a workshop on The Bribery Act 2010 at its office on 9 February 2011.

The Act was due to come into force on 1st April 2011 but has been suspended until 2012. However, speakers Peter Hastings and Lauren Coleman explained to the appreciative audience that the changes due will affect many clients and introducers in the everyday running of their business, with tough penalties such as unlimited fines and imprisonment for business owners and directors found guilty of bribery offences being introduced. Peter added "Ignorance will be no defence - directors will still be liable and must have demonstrable, active anti-bribery and anti-corruption policies and procedures in place. " Lauren advised the audience that "commercial organisations must incorporate anti-corruption elements into their code of conduct, risk management, due diligence, decision making, procurement and contract management, employee vetting and disciplinary procedures. The organisation must ensure relevant staff are appropriately trained in these areas. Organisations should establish gifts and hospitality policies and registers".

One of the attendees commented " Thank you for last night's presentation which answered several questions that are likely to arise in the various worlds that I work in. It gave a clear idea of the consequences of not having procedures and policies in place - so, as part of the ISO9001 quality system ,that I work on I shall be drafting some policies for my MD to look at as a matter of some urgency.Thank you for arranging the event".

The firm will be organising a series of workshops for businesses and directors and private clients, and also aimed at particular sectors including the construction and healthcare sectors.

Government Announces Abolition of the Default Retirement Age

2011-01-17T14:47:00.000Z

As widely predicted, the Government announced plans last week to abolish the default retirement age of 65 with effect from the 1^st October 2011.

Phil Kerridge, head of Employment Law at the Firm, believes that it is vital that businesses understand the impact that the abolition of the DRA will have on them, both in terms of any employees who are approaching (or have passed) the age of 65 and beyond.

“Under current legislation, retirement is one of the grounds of fair dismissal, provided that employers follow a procedure that basically requires them (amongst other things) to give any employee at least 6 months notice of their intention to retire them.

In the short term, if an employer is considering retiring an employee who is due to reach (or who has already reached) the age of 65, the current rules will continue to apply provided that retirement is due to take place by no later than 30^th September 2011. This will require notice to have been given by no later than 30^th March 2011.

Longer term, employers will find it much more difficult to fall back on the retirement provisions as an alternative to addressing performance issues with their elder staff, which I believe is what often happens at present. The abolition of the DRA will, for most employers, place far greater emphasis on the need to have regular appraisals/workplace discussions with their workforce. These will have to be very carefully handled so as to avoid any suggestion that the employer is acting in a discriminatory fashion.”

Phil Kerridge can be contacted for further advice on this subject or any other employment matter on 01603 675603 or at pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk

Christmas Panto

2011-01-11T14:54:00.001Z

On Thursday 6th January 2011 for the second year running we hosted a late Christmas party for 24 children associated with the Charity, Nelson's Journey at the Theatre Royal in Norwich instead of sending Corporate Christmas cards. The children were joined by some of the cast from the panto and Nelson the Cat, the symbol of the Charity, during the party. After the party the children watched the Pantomime, Jack and the Beanstalk and a great time was had by everyone, even the adults and helpers as the photographs show!

Nelson's Journey is a Charity based in Norfolk which helps children affected by a bereavement of some kind and does some sterling work in rebuilding confidence and acceptance in those children. We are delighted to announce that they will be our chosen Charity for 2011 and we look forward to working closely with them to raise lots of money for them under their project called "Smiles Appeal" during the year.

Further information about the Charity can be obtained from www.nelsonsjourney.org.uk.

R&N donate photocopier to local charity

2010-11-25T09:27:00.000Z

Rogers & Norton Solicitors have recently presented a colour photocopier to Nelsons Journey, the Charity that cares for children who have suffered bereavement in some form or other. The unit will help to speed up their administration tasks. The copier was originally supplied by Photostatic Copiers and was surplus to the needs of the Solicitors Practice. Graham Knights, Practice Manager for the law firm commented "Nelsons Journey does some fantastic work in the local community without always receiving the recognition it deserves. We are delighted to help in this way by donating the copier to them". Kim Greensmith, Chief Exective Officer of Nelson's Journey said "We are very pleased that Rogers & Norton have helped us in this way as having our own photocopier has already made a difference to our administrative process, saving us time as well as money. We operate on a relatively small income and every penny counts, in this case every copy counts!"

The photograph above shows Caroline Martin of Photostaic, Kim Chase of the Charity and Graham Knights, Practice Manager for Rogers & Norton at the presentation.

Prenuptials – Where do we stand?

2010-11-05T10:32:00.000Z

Following the Supreme Court judgment last month we have seen an increased number of instructions regarding prenuptial agreements. We are continually asked whether prenuptials agreements are legally binding and what actually happened in this landmark case of Radmacher (2010).

Background

Katrin Radmacher (40) and Nicolas Granatino (38) married in 1998. The wealthy German heiress thought to be worth more than £100m, wealth which was mainly inherited from her family paper firm, ensured that her husband signed a prenuptial agreement before marriage promising to make no claims on her fortune if the marriage failed. The couple separated in 2006 – the fortune remained, and Granatino, a mature student at Oxford, decided to challenge the prenuptial agreement. The prenuptial had been signed in Germany, where these agreements are enforceable. The parties divorced in Britain and Granatino argued it had no status in English law.

Judgement

The Supreme Court judgment in this case on 20th October 2010 has given explosive recognition to prenuptial agreements when deciding the terms of a divorce. Judges have for many years been willing to take prenuptial agreements into consideration but the Supreme Court went further, describing the contracts as having "decisive weight".

By a majority of 8-1, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by Nicolas Granatino, holding that in this case there were no circumstances that rendered it unfair to hold Granatino to the agreement.

What does this mean?

The decision sees a shift in the status of prenuptials. Although there is now an effective presumption that the agreement will be upheld, assuming the document has been carefully drafted by legal experts. There are exceptions to this rule if one party to the prenuptial has suffered from a material lack of disclosure, information or advice, or if the agreement fails to make adequate provision for dependent children or fail to meet one parties’ reasonable needs.

These exceptions may sound like a loophole but the Court have to take on board these facts before they interfere with a prenuptial that has been freely entered into by consenting adults.

In this case, Granatino did not have any independent legal advice and interestingly there had also been a lack of disclosure of Radmacher's financial circumstances – factors that would have traditionally led the courts to ascribe less weight to the agreement. That said, the court decided to hold the parties to the agreement. The significant points in this case were that both parties are from other European countries where prenuptials are automatically enforced and the prenuptial was also signed in Germany. This gave the court an indication of their intentions to be legally bound by the terms.

The concern is that this will lead to an exploitation of the vulnerable and financially weaker party, who may find themselves feeling compelled to sign up to a prenuptial agreement, prepared on the other party's terms. This concern can be addressed as long as both parties have the assistance and benefit of independent legal advice at the time of drafting the prenuptial agreement. Lady Hale, who dissented the judgment, was also clear that a prenuptial should be considered as only one of a number of factors contributing to a divorce settlement.

At present the Law Commission is engaged in preparing a report as to the status of prenuptial agreements. Prenuptials are not as a result of this decision "legal" – that remains a matter for parliament. It does allow those couples who regard prenuptials as a useful way of regulating the consequences of a possible marital breakdown to have more confidence following this Judgment as they will be considered with more weight assuming that they have been carefully drafted and regularly reviewed.

Statistics and the media continually report that January is the month during which the most divorces are filed. It is therefore essential that if a party is seeking to rely on their prenuptial agreement that they take on board the points raised in this case. Will your prenuptial or postnuptial stand the test of time if it has not been reviewed? I refer you to our website where more information regarding prenuptials and post-nuptial can be obtained.

Contact Amy Walpole on ajw@rogers-norton.co.uk or go to http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/pre-nuptial-post-nuptial-agreements.htm

Written by Amy Walpole Family Solicitor, Partner, who regularly drafts prenuptial and postnuptial agreements.

Delight as Rogers & Norton wins acclaim in top UK legal guide

2010-09-17T11:55:00.000+01:00

Rogers & Norton has won praise for its quality service and expertise in this year’s edition of the Legal 500 – the UK’s foremost guide to leading law firms.

The Legal 500 is the most widely used legal directory in the country and is considered to be "the bible of the legal business", ranking law firms in terms of their skills and performance.

The 2010 edition (published online at www.legal500.com) highlights Norwich-based Rogers & Norton’s continued ethos of providing expert legal advice to clients – regionally, nationally and internationally.

Richard Etheridge, Managing Partner and Head of the firm’s Commercial Department, says: “We are delighted that Rogers & Norton has once again won acclaim and recognition for its first-rate work through the Legal 500, which is widely regarded as offering the definitive judgment of law firms. We are proud to have built up such a talented team and it’s very satisfying that their expertise has been both applauded and highlighted in the latest Legal 500.”

He adds: “It has certainly been a notable year for Rogers & Norton. We have strengthened our operation by bringing additional specialist expertise into the firm and promoting internally, which has led to significant gains and entries into sectors that are core to our future development. In 2011 we intend to ensure that we continue our excellent levels of service to clients both old and new, while also developing these important new sectors.

“Above all, the Rogers & Norton ethos of providing quality legal advice, delivered at a sensible cost, remains crucial to all existing and new business sectors.”

Founded in 1982, Rogers & Norton has grown from two partners to 12 partners – and now has more than 60 fee-earners and support staff.

Notable inclusions in this year’s Legal 500 see the elevation of the Rogers & Norton Dispute Resolution Team from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2 firm. The elevation recognises the excellent work done by Phil Kerridge and John Cadywould – and the arrival of Peter Hastings earlier this year.

Phil Kerridge, who continues to provide commercial dispute resolution advice to a wide variety of clients, including national companies, is also recognised for his employer-based employment law expertise. He has advised many local businesses over the last 12 months on redundancy and cost-saving matters, as well as dealing with Health & Safety prosecutions.

John Cadywould is praised in Legal 500 for his excellent reputation in commercial and contractual matters, breaches of confidentiality and defamation cases. His expertise has undoubtedly helped Rogers & Norton to ascend the rankings within the section.

This year saw the arrival of Peter Hastings, one of the region’s most prominent and experienced commercial litigators, as a new Partner at Rogers & Norton. Through his deep specialist knowledge, enthusiasm and energy, Peter has added weight to the firm’s commercial, construction and insolvency practice in addition to his HM Revenue and Customs work.

In the six months since Peter’s appointment, the practice has seen significant additions to its client database – including instructions from a national finance company, a major leisure company, international and local businesses and insolvency practitioners.

New instructions have included several multi-million pound claims from the offshore, construction and insolvency sectors, and various claims and disputes with HM Revenue Customs, including acting and advising on injunctions, appeals and judicial reviews.

The Dispute Resolution Team has seen notable success in 2010, which highlights the quality of the advice from Rogers & Norton’s experienced lawyers and has led to further strengthening of the team by way of internal promotions.

Richard Etheridge’s Commercial Department is recognised in Legal 500 for its good work ethic, delivered in a personable manner. The department continues to enjoy a wealth of instructions from the medical sector, as well as advising on local business, sales and acquisitions.

Richard works in conjunction with Partner Bruce Faulkner, who is also recognised for his licensing expertise, and the Dispute Resolution Team provides a ‘one-stop shop’ to commercial clients, whatever their business needs.

The Rogers & Norton Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence practice has in 2010 continued to maintain its excellent reputation for providing advice on a multitude of complex, multi-track personal injury and clinical negligence litigation.

Tim Nobbs has led the Clinical Negligence Department to its first year of recognition in the Legal 500’s ‘Tiers for Clinical Negligence’, following a succession of significant cases – including multi-million pound claims. His expertise and perseverance in investigating cases where many others have given up have brought this well-deserved recognition.

In the firm’s Personal Injury Department, Mark Hambling, a member of the Law Society Personal Injury Panel and recognised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as a Senior Litigator, continues to thrive – with instructions on a range of multi-track personal injury cases.

Mark’s expertise has seen him succeed in a variety of cases, including instructions on cases turned down by other lawyers and where a client instructs the firm for a second opinion in cases which, on review, are undervalued.

Marc Greig, the Head of Residential Conveyancing, has continued to develop an enviable reputation with a network of local builders and developers, from whom the firm continues to enjoy and appreciate instruction.

Steve Clarke’s promotion to Partner has reinforced his reputation for providing clear and concise advice to a variety of private individuals and developers, with continued instructions from both local clients and introducers.

The Private Client Department progresses well under Catherine Hawdon and Tom Lawrence, both recognised in Legal 500 as good people to deal with and who provide advice on a variety of personal tax, trust and probate matters. They are recognised as members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.

Colin Grooms and Amy Walpole, in the Rogers & Norton Family Department, are again recognised for their experience and advocacy – as well as a growing reputation for being able to undertake high net worth ancillary relief matters. Colin, a Law Society Family Law Panel Member, and Amy manage the team, which acts for a variety of clients on cases of varying value.

ROGERS & NORTON PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS REACCREDITED

2010-09-06T16:49:00.000+01:00

We are delighted to announce that Tina Myhill and Mark Hambling in our Personal Injury Department have successfully been re accredited by the Law Society as Members of the Law Society’s Accredited Personal Injury Panel.

This Accreditation demonstrates the practices commitment to ensuring the highest level of expertise in their lawyers. It also provides clients with the assurance that both Tina and Mark have been assessed independently as experts in the field of personal injury law.

At a time when there are many possible opportunities to seek advice in relation to a potential personal injury claim, it is important to ensure the person being instructed is an expert and recognized as such by an independent body. This accreditation provides reassurance to both clients and potential clients of the practice of the expertise and ability that Rogers & Norton has and sets us apart from many of our competitors.

In relation to Mark Hambling the Law Society Accreditation accompanies his Accreditation with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as a senior Personal Injury Litigator.

Concern as taxman cries foul over ‘unfair’ soccer ruling

2010-08-06T14:59:00.000+01:00

Tax chiefs are calling for a ‘more level playing field’ when it comes to soccer clubs running into financial trouble.

HM Revenue & Customs says this summer’s controversial court ruling in favour of Portsmouth Football Club has once again highlighted the unfairness of the so-called ‘Football Creditors’ Rule’, which it is now trying to fight through wider legal action.

August’s High Court judgment meant that Portsmouth FC was free to begin the 2010/11 Championship season after a challenge to its Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) by HMRC failed.

The taxman had wanted the proposed CVA to be blocked, arguing that it unfairly favoured football creditors over others. There was also an issue over the extent of the alleged tax liability, based on HMRC’s assessments.

While the CVA gave Pompey's administrators time to try to settle the club's debts and find new owners, HMRC was left crying foul over what it sees as a serious and industry-wide iniquity.

HMRC submitted that the CVA favoured football-based creditors – including players, who could recover 100% of money owed – over others, such as HMRC itself, meaning that "one class scoops the pool and the rest are left out in the cold”.

An HMRC statement afterwards said: "We are naturally disappointed. . . and we can confirm that we do not intend to appeal. Our aim when pursuing debt of any kind is to achieve a fair outcome for the taxpayer and we will take this forward in the wider context of the football industry through separate and outstanding legal proceedings over the status of the so-called ‘Football Creditors’ Rule’.”

More and more soccer clubs in financial crisis are likely to be shown the red card by HRMC, according to Peter Hastings, a Partner at Norwich-based law firm Rogers & Norton, who specialises in insolvency and disputes with HMRC.

Mr Hastings, who has himself acted for football clubs and trusts, says: “It is accepted that football is a unique business and that the ‘Football Creditors’ Rule’ provides preferential treatment to those within sector. So, for example, if a club owes another club some money for programmes or transfer fees, this would take priority over a debt due to a supplier or HMRC.

“We also know that most, if not all, football clubs may be technically insolvent and reliant on the generosity of rich funders. Combined with HMRC’s apparent harder attitude to the recovery of unpaid tax, this will no doubt lead to more winding-up petitions against football clubs (and other businesses). We have seen many clubs recently facing the threat of liquidation and seeking alternative forms of recovery – administration and CVAs, for example.”

Mr Hastings says: “The Portsmouth case also highlights once again the powers that HMRC has and how it can make an assessment against a business, appoint a provisional liquidator, freeze assets of the directors and in effect shut down a business and deprive the company and its directors of challenging the assessment (which, of course, it did not do with Portsmouth).

“I have acted on a number of cases where HMRC has sought to liquidate a company based on a disputed assessment, and court proceedings have had to been taken to prevent the liquidation, allowing the assessment to be appealed. It seems to be accepted that HMRC is placing a greater emphasis on the recovery of tax.

“I’ve seen an increase in businesses and individuals who are challenging assessments, detentions and seizures, statutory demands, winding-up and bankruptcy petitions. In addition, I have clients who have made proposals for repayment but are having to set up a CVA or Individual Voluntary Arrangement for such proposals to be accepted by HMRC.”

Mr Hastings adds: “There has already been a mixed reaction to Portsmouth’s success in its High Court ruling. The passionate football supporter, especially Pompey fans, have clearly been delighted – but is it right that some creditors and the taxpayer suffer in such cases?”

Peter Hastings is a Partner at Rogers & Norton Solicitors, The Old Chapel, 5-7 Willow Lane, Norwich (www.rogers-norton.co.uk). He can be contacted on 01603 675639 or via peter.hastings@rogers-norton.co.uk.

R&N Breakfast Club

2010-08-04T10:09:00.000+01:00

Our next Breakfast Club to be held at the Theatre Royal Norwich on Tuesday September 7th. I am delighted that Bryan Gunn, ex Norwich City and Scotland goalkeeper has agreed to be our speaker and I am sure that Bryan will continue the trend of excellent speakers that we have had at previous meetings. Given his popularity around the city, I expect that seats will be sold very quickly and these will be allocated on a strict "first come first served" basis as usual upon receipt of your completed reply slip (please email Graham Knights to obtain one) and cheque for £12.50 payable to "Rogers & Norton". We are restricted to seventy places at the breakfast so I would urge you to reply early if you intend to come along!

I look forward to seeing you at the Theatre on the 7th September and would also like to give you dates and details of two further events that we are planning for your diary.

1. - Friday September 10th - Rogers & Norton Annual Golf Day in aid of Macmillan Nurses. This event will be held as usual at Bawburgh Golf Club and all proceeds will go to this very worthy charity to co-incide with their World's Biggest Coffee Morning which we support every year. There are still great sponsorship opportunities available to Companies by sponsoring a hole on the day at a reasonable cost of £50.00 and some team places are also available at an inclusive cost of £200.00 per team of four to include coffee and bacon roll on arrival, golf, 3 course dinner and prizes. For further information about sponsoring or entering a team please contact me asap.

2. - Tuesday December 7th - Christmas Breakfast Club Meeting. This event will be at the Theatre as usual and the speaker is yet to be announced. This event also tends to be very popular. More details in due course.

Kind regards

Graham Knights
Practice Manager
Direct Line: 01603 675618

New Consumer Credit Directive

2010-06-24T11:35:00.000+01:00

The Consumer Credit Directive 2008/48/EC (“the Directive”) and the Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010 has introduced new rights and obligations, although The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has decided that there will be a transitional period and any new agreements entered into after 31 January 2011 must comply with the new requirements.

Peter Hastings, Partner at Rogers and Norton reports on the key changes:

“There are several key changes. For example, Lenders have a duty to provide adequate explanations to consumers about the credit on offer to enable them to decide whether it is suited to their needs and circumstances. Lenders are also obliged to assess the creditworthiness of consumers before concluding a credit agreement or increasing the amount of credit available under an existing agreement. Lenders can decide how to assess creditworthiness, but are required to base their assessment on information obtained from the consumer, where appropriate and from a credit reference agency, where necessary. If an application is refused on the basis of information from a credit reference agency, the lender must inform the creditor of this when it declines the credit”.

In addition, Jenna Phillips, litigation executive in Rogers and Norton
Commercial Litigation Group comments that:-

“The consumer has the right to withdraw from a credit agreement within 14 days without giving any reason, which replaces the current limited right to cancel some types of agreements. Credit intermediaries must disclose their links to lenders and disclose and agree fees for their services with the consumer. The consumer also has the right to repay an agreement early in part and to receive a reduction in the total cost of the agreement as a result. The existing legal framework for full early repayment has been retained and extended to cover partial early repayment”

Jenna Phillips adds:-

“Advertisements that contain specific information about the cost of the credit need to provide a representative example of a credit offer. The Consumer Credit (Advertisement) Regulations 2010 will dispense with the APR approach. Consumers must be given pre-contractual information in writing according to a specific format set out in the Directive. This information is set out in the Consumer Credit (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2010 and other contractual information required is set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulation 2010” .

Non-business unsecured overdrafts will be subject to the requirements for both pre-contractual and contractual information although an overdraft can be arranged urgently without prior written information. Where a current account allows the account holder to overdraw without a pre-arranged overdraft, information about the charges must be included in the agreement. (Regulation 19 of the Directive). Where a credit agreement is used to purchase goods, the consumer can pursue the creditor for a remedy. The value of the goods must be at least £30,000, the credit agreement must be for £60,260 or less and the consumer must have tried to obtain satisfaction from the supplier first. This supplements s75 of the Consumer Credit Act where the cash price of goods is not less than £100 and not more than £30,000. (Regulation 25 of the Directive). Finally, the total charge for credit and the APR must be calculated in accordance with a specified formula. The formula is different to the one which already applies in the UK, but the result it produces is the same and the assumptions are broadly similar. (Total Charge for Credit Regulations 2010).

Peter Hastings adds “The new Directive will provide more protection for the consumer and places extra burden and restrictions on the lender. I can foresee that there will be an increase in disputes arising from this, especially with pressure on businesses in the current economy”.

Rogers and Norton solicitors and its Commercial Litigation Group act for National and Local Finance Companies and Lenders on such matters.

R&N Business Leaders Lunch

2010-06-18T10:49:00.000+01:00

On the 14th June 2010 Rogers & Norton Solicitors hosted their 3rd Business Leaders Lunch. The event took place at the Assembly House in Norwich when 72 guests enjoyed a splendid lunch prepared from the kitchen of Richard Hughes followed by a presentation by Jeff Halliwell, Managing Director of Bernard Matthews Foods Ltd in which he discussed the Company's turnaround programme and plans for the future.

The event, which was hosted in association with the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce was a great success and plans are already in place for a similar function later in the year.

Commenting on the event Mark Hambling, partner said "I am delighted that so many people from the local business community joined us for a delightful lunch in pleasant surroundings to listen to Jeff's interesting presentation. Can I thank both Jeff Halliwell and Richard Hughes for making the event such a success".

If you wish to be kept informed about the next lunch please contact our Practice Manager Graham Knights (tel 01603 675618 or gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk) for further details and dates.

R&N Act for Oceanteam II BV

2010-06-11T10:54:00.000+01:00

Rogers & Norton solicitors based in Norwich are delighted to announce that they have been instructed by Oceanteam II BV (a member of the worldwide Oceanteam Group of Companies) to act on its behalf. Initially, the firm’s commercial litigation group has been instructed to act for Oceanteam II BV to deal with a dispute concerning one of its Sea-Ploughs and A-Frame, valued at between £1.7 million and £2.5 million.

The Oceanteam Group is an offshore services company, which charters Large Offshore Construction Support Construction Support Vessels and Fast Support Vessels throughout the world. Oceanteam ASA's Quarter 1 report for 2010 published a total operating revenue of €7,406,000.

Rogers & Norton, Managing Partner Richard Etheridge comments, "We are delighted to have been instructed to act for Oceanteam II BV, having acted for its UK subsidiaries recently. Our client was impressed with not only our legal skills but also the way we delivered them and our commitment to providing an excellent service to our clients".

Peter Hastings and Phil Kerridge, partners in the commercial litigation group, are acting on the dispute. Peter adds, "The case is proceeding in the Commercial Court and within a matter of days of receiving the instructions and meeting our client, we were ready to proceed with the case and take the necessary action to ensure that we secure our client's objectives. Our client is already delighted at the strength and depth of the commercial litigation group at Rogers and Norton and the ability to complete this case quickly and successfully".

Phil Kerridge, who is the Group's Head also comments, "This new instruction follows a number of very impressive client wins on some high value litigation recently, and is in accordance with our ambitious and targeted expansion programme. We are confident that we have the expertise and structure to deal with such claims, and at the same time, ensuring we successfully act for small to medium sized businesses locally and nationally". Peter Hastings added that he hopes the Claim can be concluded this summer.

Solicitor looks to challenge HMRC's detentions

2010-06-11T10:43:00.000+01:00

Peter Hastings, a Partner with Rogers and Norton solicitors and specialist in claims involving HMRC (and its predecessors Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue) is calling for businesses within the alcohol and warehousing sectors and industries to contact him concerning their experiences with HMRC when HMRC have detained and/or seized goods.

He also wants to hear from businesses who have been the subject of assessments leading to the insolvency of their business, and as a consequence inability to appeal the assessment. Initially, Peter is considering mounting a challenge to HMRC's apparent power and ability to detain goods and stock without reasonable grounds for doing so, or without suspicion as to the legality of the goods i.e. whether Duty has been paid. He is also concerned at how long goods are detained before being released or seized.

Peter has successfully acted for businesses in securing the release of stock valued at millions through the Courts, by Judicial Reviews and Injunctions. He comments: - “I very recently advised a business whose entire stock valued in excess of £1million had been detained by HMRC, whilst HMRC investigated the Duty status of the stock. This detention put the business and its employees' jobs at risk. It was eventually released. I am now acting for another business whose entire stock has been detained, again pending an investigation. There are no apparent suspicions for believing that Duty has not been paid; HMRC are investigating the “chain” and 6 weeks after the detention, no progress appears to have been made. My client has had to make redundancies, even though there is no suggestion or evidence that my client has acted unlawfully in anyway. We are now preparing Court proceedings to seek the release of the stock and damages for conversion. HMRC, in my opinion, do not have reasonable grounds to suspect that the alcohol was or is liable to forfeiture. Certainly no grounds or suspicions were disclosed at the time of the detention”.

Peter adds "I also consider that such detentions may be a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol, European Convention on Human Rights. Even if there were grounds to detain, the decision to seize or return the stock really must be made within 4 weeks in my view, not just as a matter of law but for the sake of legitimate businesses, the economy and jobs. HMRC's powers derive from the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Although it is relatively recent, it is in my view outdated and needs to be amended. HMRC want to be satisfied that duty has been paid and quite rightly have concerns on "missing traders". However, it is impossible for legitimate businesses to prove this, unless they have bought direct from the brewer/manufacturer. Of course, we all want to work with HMRC to ensure that Duty and VAT is paid, as required. That is not the issue. I know that those within the industry are calling for a system that protects both HMRC and also legitimate businesses. I therefore want to hear from businesses that have faced or are facing such problems, including their experiences of responding to assessments raised and being unable to appeal these due to the lack of funding. I will then consider whether there are good prospects in challenging HMRC's powers and the current legislation, and at the time finding a solution to the current system. We already have interest from one MP in the North on this”.

Contact Peter on 01603 666001 or ph@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Newsflash: Are HIPS History ?

2010-05-20T16:31:00.000+01:00

The new Housing Minister, Grant Shapps announced today that with effect from the 21^st May 2010 the requirement for a Home Information Pack for anyone selling their home will be suspended.

Whilst scrapping the requirement for a formal Home Information Pack which was introduced in 2007 the Government are retaining the requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate which ranks the energy efficiency of a home. This will still need to be produced by a seller within 28 days of putting a home on the market but it is expected that the cost of producing this will be substantially less than the cost of a Home Information Pack, which since 2007 has been the burden of the seller to produce before a property is marketed.

Commenting upon the announcement Marc Greig, Partner in Rogers & Norton’s Residential Conveyancing Department, welcomed the news and explained that the Home Information Pack has not in his experience hastened or indeed improved the conveyancing process.

Marc indicated the problem with the HIP was that the information was often compiled many months before a buyer was found and therefore searches were out of date and often had to be duplicated incurring additional expense.

Further the requirement to incur the cost of a HIP before a property was marketed has possibly reduced the amount of sellers who may speculatively place their property on the market in the hope that a sale can be achieved.

It is hoped that the suspension of the Home Information Pack will bring back to the market the speculative seller, hasten the conveyancing process and remove the risk of additional costs. These will hopefully drive forward and stimulate the housing market in what we all know are and indeed have been very difficult times.

For further information on today’s announcement or to discuss any property related matters please contact Marc Greig.

marc.greig@rogers-norton.co.uk

Telephone 01603 675614.

R&N Continue with Expansion Programme

2010-04-01T07:54:00.000+01:00

Rogers and Norton is continuing its planned expansion programme with the appointment of two new partners; Peter Hastings and Steve Clarke.

Peter joins the firm after nine years with another Norwich firm where he was head of its Commercial Litigation Department. Steve Clarke has been with Rogers and Norton for four years, working with the Conveyancing Team and becomes the firm’s first non-solicitor partner.

Peter brings a wealth of experience to the firm having specialised in Commercial Litigation for nearly 25 years, with a particular expertise in construction, insolvency, Customs and Excise tax claims and business disputes. He recently acted for a director and shareholder involved in a £20m dispute with a colleague.

He is also experienced in the High Court, County Court, Technology and Construction Court, Companies Court and with VAT and Tax Tribunals.

Peter Hastings said, “When I knew it was time to move on deciding to join Rogers and Norton was easy. I have never heard a bad word said about them; it’s a very friendly, but highly professional, firm with a strong leadership that is clearly going places. I am looking forward to playing my part in its continued expansion.”

Steve Clarke started his career with a Norwich law firm as the office junior straight from school. Over the next 12 years he worked his way up specialising in conveyancing.

This promotion is something he thought would never happen. “Until recent changes in Law Society rules it was impossible for a non-solicitor to be a partner. Therefore I thought it would be difficult for me to progress so I am just delighted as I have always felt very much at home here.”

These two appointments underline our commitment to grow the firm and move into new areas. We have long been an admirer of Peter and the excellent work he does. He brings a new level of expertise into the practice. There is a lot of work out there we now have the capability of handling extremely well on a local and national level.

We are also delighted Steve Clarke has agreed to become a partner. Steve is a highly experienced property lawyer and has an approach to work which has already made him a firm favourite with clients. He is our first non-solicitor partner and demonstrates our willingness to embrace new opportunities to ensure progression of our staff for the benefit of themselves and our clients.

Finally it gives us great pleasure to announce that Tom Lawrence has been promoted to Associate within the Practice. Catherine Hawdon who has been a senior Solicitor and Associate for a number of years becomes a consultant. Catherine and Tom are part of our busy Private Client department and deal primarily with Wills, Trusts and Probate matters.

All these appointments are part of the Partners commitment to ensure the firm is able to provide enhanced services and expertise to its clients.

Click below to view profiles.

Peter Hastings Steve Clarke Tom Lawrence Catherine Hawdon

Richard Etheridge

Managing Partner

Tom Lawrence promoted to Associate

2010-03-05T10:46:00.000Z

R&N are pleased to announce the promotion of Tom Lawrence to the position of Associate within our Private Client Department which takes effect on 1st April 2010.

Tom, who qualified as a solicitor five years ago, joined R&N in 2007 and specialises in wills, probate, trusts, inheritance issues and powers of attorney.

Tom has shown a great commitment both to his clients and the firm since he has been with us and his promotion is richly reserved.

Commenting on his promotion, Tom said “I am delighted, Rogers & Norton is a highly successful and growing firm and it’s great to be part of it.”

Click the following link for an article on Tom's promotion on the Law Society Website - http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/node/54395.

If you would like more information regarding our Private Client department, Tom can be contacted on 01603 675610 or tl@rogers-norton.co.uk.

NEW MANDATORY CODE OF CONDUCT FOR ALCOHOL RETAILERS

2010-03-05T10:28:00.000Z

The Government has recently announced a new code of conduct for alcohol retailers.

The changes and their dates of implementation are set out in the table below. They will apply to all licensed premises although many will in reality be unaffected by them. Of most concern to many people however is the fact that they fail to address what is seen by many as the main problem affecting the licensed trade. Supermarkets will be largely unaffected and will continue to be able to sell alcohol as a ‘loss leader’ at considerably lower prices than the rest of the trade. Not only does this directly affect the profitability of pubs in particular it is seen by many as a major contributor to the problem of binge drinking as it allows drinkers to ‘load up’ on cheap booze before going out.

Mandatory licensing condition	Coming into force
Banning promotions such as “all you can drink for £10” or “women drink free” deals.	6 April 2010
Banning “dentist’s chairs” where alcohol is poured directly into the mouths of customers.	6 April 2010
Ensuring free tap water is available for all customers.	6 April 2010
Making sure all sellers of alcohol have an age-verification policy in place.	1 October 2010
Ensuring small measures of alcoholic drinks are made available to customers.	1 October 2010

Penalties for breaching the code

Premises that breach any of the above conditions will risk a range of sanctions, including:

Having additional conditions imposed on their licence.
Losing their licence.
A maximum £20,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment.

More information

If you require any more information on this or any other licensing matter please contact Bruce Faulkner on 01603 675609 or by email at bwf@rogers-norton.co.uk.

£3000 Raised for Macmillan Nurses!

2010-01-25T16:02:00.000Z

Macmillan Cancer Support in Norfolk has received a welcome boost thanks to the effort of over 100 golfers who took part in a special event in September last year.

Just over £3,000 was raised at our Annual Charity Golf Day held at Bawburgh as part of Macmillan’s ‘World’s Biggest Coffee Morning’ event. We have supported the Macmillan Coffee Morning for the last 11 years and have raised a substantial sum during this time thanks to the continued support of our clients and contacts for which we are very grateful.

"Rogers & Norton have once again surpassed themselves by organising their golf day to support us,” said Helen Chapman, Macmillan’s Fund Raising Manager. “Raising over £3,000 is fantastic, especially in the current economic climate. It is enough to fund our Mobile Information Centre to visit Norfolk for a day, bringing cancer information to the community or to fund a Macmillan nurse for just under a month. I would like to thank Rogers & Norton for holding the golf day and everyone who took part.”

Macmillan does such a superb job across Norfolk which is why we support their Coffee Morning every year. I am sure that is why people responded most generously on the day as they knew the money was going to such a worthy cause.

If you would like more information about our Golf Day or more details of the Charity please contact me (Graham Knights) on 01603 675618 or gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk.

R&N go to the Panto

2010-01-25T15:58:00.001Z

We are delighted to let you know that our outing to the theatre on 14th January was a great success and we were able to take 25 children to see the Pantomime at Norwich Theatre Royal. The seats were offered to children through Nelson's Journey, a local Charity dedicated to supporting children in Norfolk who have experienced the death of a close family member or friend.

With the brilliant help of the Theatre Royal staff we were able to make it a really special event as the children were treated to a back stage tour and had their own tea party before enthusiastically enjoying the Panto!

The whole event was a great exercise in how a little effort and some well directed funds can bring so much enjoyment to children in real need of a lift at a very vulnerable time in their lives. We will certainly consider repeating the event next year as a result of this experience. More information about Nelson's Journey can be obtained from http://www.nelsonsjourney.org.uk.

R&N 5-a-side League

2010-01-25T15:26:00.000Z

Following the completion of another competitive season of 5-A-Side football in the Rogers & Norton Football League the presentations were made today to Larking Gowen and TSI Structures, for winning their respective divisions.

Thank you to all the teams that took part in the leagues last year. If there are any other professional organisations that would like to join the League please feel free to contact Paul Warden on 01603 675628 or pw@rogers-norton.co.uk. Our league is played on a friendly but competitive basis with no referees. The current format allows each team to play a home and an away fixture at a time and day to suit both teams. We look forward to welcoming you into our league soon.

Larking Gowen receiving the Division 1 trophy from our Practice Manager: From Left to Right: Matt Pilgrim, Steve Van Raalte, Shaun Powley.

TSI Structures receiving the Division 2 trophy from our Practice Manager: From Left to Right: Stephen Wright, Matthew Wright, Marty Broadwater, Scott Measures, Gavin Douglass, David Williams.

Clare School Life Skills Room Grand Opening

2009-12-10T12:03:00.000Z

We are delighted to be able to advise you that the project to renovate the Life Skills Room at the Clare School in South Park Avenue has finally been completed and officially opened by the Lord Mayor Cllr Eve Collishaw and The Right Hon. Charles Clarke MP on Friday 4th December 2009.

This project has taken almost three years to complete and was originally a fund raising idea by the Practice to help disadvantaged children at the School develop their culinary skills in what were very dated surroundings as no improvements had been carried out since the 1970s. We held a Grand Charity Ball in aid of the school in June 2007 at Drayton Old Lodge and raised a sum of just under £20,000 from the event. This has been added to other donations and grants to allow the refurbishment to take place.

We would like to take this opportunity to not only let all our clients and contacts know about the improvement but to say a big thank you to all those individuals and Companies who contributed in some way, large or small, towards making this happen. Without such support the renovation would not have been possible. We are including links to some photos and video footage of the speeches at the opening so you are able to see what has actually been achieved with the money and the enormous difference it will make to the children attending the School.

As a result of our liaison over the last three years we have become a Business Partner of the School which we hope will benefit the children in the future too.

If you would like further information about the School or the project please conact either the School Headmaster Nigel Smith at office@clare.norfolk.sch.uk or Graham Knights at Rogers & Norton gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Watch Right Hon. Charles Clarke MP & Lord Mayor Cllr Eve Collishaw perform the opening ceremony here

Watch Nigel Smith's speech here

Photos can be viewed here

R&N Newsbrief Autumn 2009

2009-10-22T15:38:00.001+01:00

R&N Newsbrief Autumn 2009

R&N Legal 500

2009-09-25T12:11:00.000+01:00

The 2009 edition of The Legal 500 has just been published and will be accessible in paper copy and online at www.legal500.com.

Rogers & Norton are once again delighted to be acknowledged in many areas of the Practice.

Some of the comments that have been made include:

Corporate & Commercial
‘one of the leading small private law firms in Norfolk, providing value for money and taking pride in caring for clients’. Richard Etheridge brings a ‘commercial and constructive approach’, a ‘detailed knowledge of the law and a personable nature’ that is appreciated by many local businesses.

Licensing
'Working with them has always been great, response times are very quick, and they have a wealth of experience’, say clients of Bruce Faulkner. It is a ‘one-stop shop’ for licensing law and property advice.

Dispute Resolution/Employment
Multi-talented litigator John Cadywould has ‘a wealth of experience coupled with a professional ethos and empathy’ in everything from libel to contractual disputes.

Phil Kerridge is ‘highly professional, very knowledgeable and can talk in layman’s terms’ to the great satisfaction of clients, who report ‘friendly, professional service’.

Personal Injury
The team at Rogers and Norton ‘focuses on the personal relationship with the client’. Tim Nobbs and Mark Hambling are recommended.

Family
Amy Walpole and Colin Grooms, a founder member of the Norwich Family Law Group, are reliable choices for ancillary relief and domestic abuse cases.

Private Client
‘a very good all-round firm for private client work’. Tom Lawrence has built a reputation for high-quality, attentive service in Catherine Hawdon’s team.

Property
Rogers and Norton is experienced in complex transactions thanks to Bruce Faulkner, Marc Greig and Robert Pyke, who represent many local businesses and property developers. Recent matters include advising in relation to a new bridge over the River Wensum, and new hangars and a helicopter terminal at Norwich Airport.

These extracts are all taken from The Legal 500 2009 edition.

"It is particularly gratifying to receive acknowledgements in The Legal 500. A substantial amount of research is undertaken with clients and fellow lawyers before the publication is written and we are therefore delighted to receive the glowing acknowledgements detailed above."

Richard Etheridge

R&N Charity Fundraising Chart

2009-08-19T11:30:00.001+01:00

The Rogers & Norton Charity Fundraising Chart supporting Guide Dogs is now available to view here http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/charity.htm

What's cooking at The Clare School ?

2009-07-09T12:19:00.000+01:00

Something will be cooking at a special school in Norwich when the pupils return from their summer holidays!

The Clare School is about to have its old kitchen ripped out and a new one installed, partly funded by a £20,000 donation from Norwich based solicitors, Rogers & Norton.

It is a mixed, day Community Special School for pupils aged 3 to 19 years with special needs usually associated with physical disabilities and/or sensory impairments; many also have complex medical needs and learning difficulties.

“The current kitchen dates from the 1970s and presents us with a number of health and safety issues,” said Head Teacher, Nigel Smith.

“Now everything is being taken out and we will be having new windows, floors, cookers, units a special teaching area and all designed to be disability friendly.

“Cooking and food preparation is a vital part of the curriculum and to have modern, up-to-date facilities will greatly enhance the experience for our pupils. We will even have talking microwaves and scales to help visually impaired children.

“Work is just about to start and it will all be ready for pupils when they return to school in September.”

Added Graham Knights from Rogers & Norton, “We always look to support a local charity or good cause through money collected at our many fund raising events. The Clare School was mentioned as falling into that category so we came and met Nigel and were very impressed with the work he and his team do.

“The kitchen certainly needed some work done to bring it up to modern standards so we are delighted the money is going to such a worthy project and I look forward to coming back in September to see it finished.”

http://www.clare.norfolk.sch.uk/

Inaugural Business Leaders Lunch produces lively debate

2009-07-06T09:51:00.000+01:00

On the 24^th June 2009 Rogers & Norton held its first Business Leaders Lunch at Sprowston Manor in Norwich. The event was attended by nearly 70 delegates who had lunch and then listened to guest speaker Richard Ellis of the East of England Development Agency.

Richard spoke about the opportunities that are available to businesses in the eastern region at the current time and considered the need to develop any business during times of recession, focusing upon approaches to marketing and in particular continuing to use the benefits of locality which remains very important to potential customers.

Commenting upon the future Richard highlighted the need for businesses to consider the wealth of young talent that is emerging from our educational institutions and give consideration to graduate recruitment. “It is important not to lose the hotbed of talent that exist in this region”.

Following Richard’s presentation he was joined by a panel comprising of Caroline Williams, Chief Executive of the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce and Paul Hill, Business Editor of the Eastern Daily Press. The panel, chaired by Rogers & Norton’s Managing Partner, Richard Etheridge took questions from the floor and this provoked lively debate on topics covering the networking abilities of local business, predictions as to when the economy will emerge from the recession and the benefits available to businesses in the Eastern region from the 2012 Olympic bid.

The intention is to arrange a further lunch later in 2009 with a further guest speaker.

First Prosecution for Corporate Manslaughter Commences

2009-06-17T14:07:00.000+01:00

On the 17^th June 2009 the first prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is to be heard in the Stroud Magistrates Court.

The Crown Prosecution Service have brought of Corporate Manslaughter against Gloucestershire based Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings.

The charge follows the death of a Junior Geologist who was killed in September 2008 when the sides of a pit in which he was collecting soil samples collapsed and crushed him.

In November 2008 Rogers & Norton co hosted a seminar on the impact of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The commencement of this prosecution is an important development from this seminar and as the prosecution progresses the manner in which the Court will deal with the evidential issues under the Act will be analysed. In addition if found guilty the Court’s new powers in sentencing can also be examined.

Under the Act the Court have the power to impose an unlimited fine. The fine in accordance with sentencing guidelines may be between 2.5% and 10% of a company’s gross turnover.

Aside from the financial sanctions the Court will also have the power to force an organisation to publicise its own guilt at its own expense if found guilty.

It is also of interest that apart from the Prosecution under the new Act the company are also being prosecuted for breaches of Section 2.1 of the Health & Safety at Work Act in failing to protect the deceased. Additionally, Company Director, Mr Peter Easton, is being charged personally with the offence of gross negligence manslaughter and further breaches of the Health & Safety at Work Act.

The case will inevitably be transferred to the Crown Court for Trial and it will be important for all businesses and advisors to watch this case develop and to establish how the Court deals with the evidential issues under the new Act and, if found guilty, their sentencing powers.

We will endeavour to provide further information on the case as and when this becomes available.

If you have any questions regarding the Act or this case please feel free to contact either:

Mark Hambling (email: mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk) Tel. 01603 675668

or Phil Kerridge (email: pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk) Tel. 01603 675612

Newsbrief 2009

2009-02-26T15:00:00.000Z

The 2009 edition of the R&N newsbrief is now online and available to view here at http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/newsletters/news2009.pdf.

Rogers & Norton go live on air in 2009

2009-01-13T16:18:00.000Z

Rogers & Norton are proud to announce that, in partnership with Norfolk Community Law Service (NCLS), as from the 28th of January 2009 we shall be appearing live on Future Radio 96.9FM to offer a free 'Legal Hotspot' to listeners.

The Legal Hotspot is to be aired on Future Radio's Community Chest Show on the final Wednesday of every month at approximately 11 am. It is to offer listeners an opportunity to pitch their legal questions in advance of the show for lawyers to answer live on air.

As far as we are aware this is the first collaboration of its type in the Norfolk area. We are hopeful that along with answering a number of legal problems the Legal Hotspot will also assist in increasing the general awareness of Future Radio's listeners to the legal services that are on offer locally.

The free Legal Hotspot concept was developed by Future Radio in collaboration with NCLS and Rogers & Norton’s Tom Lawrence, who is a solicitor in our Private Client Department. Tom said “I would like to thank NCLS and Future Radio for all of their help in making the idea a reality. It has taken a lot of time and considerable effort to bring it all together, but I am hopeful that it will provide listeners with a useful forum for obtaining answers to those thorny legal issues which we all come across from time to time.”

Mark Hambling, who is a partner and member of the marketing development team at Rogers and Norton, said “We are very appreciative of Tom's hard work and dedication in seeing his idea through to what we are sure will become a successful relationship with both NCLS and Future Radio. We hope that the Legal Hotspot shall become a show not to be missed by listeners!”

Please watch our website www.rogers-norton.co.uk for future details. If you would like to listen to the podcasts of the shows, they will be made after the monthly shows on the Future Radio website (www.futureradio.co.uk).

Proposed changes to the statutory legacy limits on Intestacy

2008-12-22T16:41:00.000Z

As part of Rogers & Norton’s continuing drive to keep clients and professional contacts up to date with legal developments, we can advise that the Ministry of Justice has announced that as from the 1st February 2009 married couples/civil partners whose spouse/civil partner dies without leaving a Will, are set to benefit from an increase in the statutory legacy limits under proposals published by the government.

The limits are currently set at £125,000 where the deceased leaves a surviving spouse/civil partner and children, and £200,000 where the deceased leaves a surviving spouse/civil partner and parents or siblings, but no children. The limits have not been increased since 1993.

It is proposed that the new levels of the statutory legacy will increase to £250,000 and £450,000 respectively. The statutory legacy is the amount payable to a surviving spouse/civil partner from the estate of his/her partner who dies intestate, that is, without leaving a Will.

Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said:

“This increase will give extra protection to married couples and civil partners whose spouse or civil partner dies without making a Will. But it also highlights how important it is for men and women to make arrangements for their loved ones in the event of their death.

Married couples and civil partners should not assume that when their spouse or civil partner dies, they will automatically be entitled to everything. It is up to the individuals to make sure that their wishes are respected by making a Will.

My message to people is, don’t leave it to chance. Make sure your loved ones are properly provided for by leaving a Will.”

Tom Lawrence, a solicitor in our Private Client Department, said “The amendments to the statutory legacy limits are a welcome change. However we strongly urge people against placing any reliance on these provisions and continue to advise all our clients that making a Will is a sensible and prudent step to take as soon as possible.”

If you have any queries on this subject please do feel free to contact our Private Client Department by either email to willsrogers-norton.co.uk or by telephone on 01603 666001.

Rogers & Norton Charity Golf Day 2008

2008-12-12T15:34:00.000Z

Cancer care in Norfolk has been given a boost thanks to the efforts of over 100 golfers who took part in a special event in aid of Macmillan Cancer Support. A total of £3,100 was raised at the Rogers & Norton Charity Golf Day held at Bawburgh as part of Macmillan’s ‘World’s Biggest Coffee Morning’ event. “The money will now be used to provide better care and information for the people of Norfolk,” said Helen Chapman, Macmillan’s Fund Raising Manager. “We have a mobile information centre which tours the villages and market towns of Norfolk and last year we gave grants of over £70,000 to cancer sufferers in the county. Our thanks go to Rogers & Norton for their valuable support.”

Added Graham Knights from Rogers & Norton, “Unfortunately almost everyone will know someone who has been affected by cancer and that’s why people responded most generously on the day to support the fantastic work Macmillan continues to do. “We are already planning to run a similar event next year.”

Corporate Manslaughter Seminar 26th November 2008

2008-12-08T09:55:00.000Z

On the 26th November 2008 Rogers & Norton in conjunction with Heath Lambert Group hosted a seminar on the impact of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

The seminar at Dunston Hall was attended by over 70 delegates and involved presentations by Mark Hambling and Phil Kerridge, both partners in the practice. Phil analysed the law prior to the 2007 Act coming into force on the 6th April 2008 and considered the law which remains in place following the Act and the current sentencing regime under the Health and Safety at Work legislation.

Mark analysed the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and provided an overview as to what will need to be proven for a successful prosecution and advised on the steps that employers should take so as to ensure that they do as much as possible to avoid prosecution in the unfortunate event of a fatality in the workplace

Commenting on the seminar Mark Hambling indicated that "Rogers & Norton were delighted to be able to co-host this seminar with Heath Lambert and analyse both the legal and insurance issues. The seminar was very popular and clearly demonstrated the awareness of local businesses as to the impact of this Act and the need to be pro-active in ensuring compliance with the legislation".

Following the seminar both Mark and Phil indicated that they are more than happy to discuss, without obligation and initially without charge, the impact of the new Act should any delegate wish to make contact

Although the seminar has now concluded, both Mark and Phil will be happy to answer any further questions on the impact of the Act and can be contacted on the details listed below.

Philip Kerridge
Telephone: 01603 675612
Email: pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk

Mark Hambling
Telephone: 01603 675668
Email: mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk

The Norwich Business Houses League

2008-11-24T14:00:00.000Z

The Norwich Business Houses League is starting its 85th season in rude health with 32 teams split across three leagues and a continuing determination to be at the very heart of grass roots football.

It is also the ninth season it has been sponsored by Norwich based solicitors Rogers & Norton and in recognition, the firm's Practice Manager, Graham Knights is a League Vice-President.

"We are proud of the long tradition we continue," said League Chairman, Michael Banham. "We believe the values of the League when it started in
1924 of fair play, healthy competition and fun are still being carried on today. It is also good to see many teams featuring father and sons, that's why we believe we are carrying on the tradition of true grass roots football."
That spirit of fair play is also extended to referees. After matches each team is required to give marks on the referee's performance and last season Iain Banham, who has been the man in the middle for five years, took top spot and received the ROGERS & NORTON Referee's Cup and a special engraved tankard .

"Referees are often forgotten but without them there would be no league," said Mr Banham. "So we like to recognise the vital role they play.

"We are also grateful for the continuing support of Rogers & Norton which helps ensure we continue to run the league and can provide trophies for the top teams. In light of this we were delighted that Graham Knights accepted our invitation to become Vice-President."

Added Mr Knights from Rogers & Norton, "We see our sponsorship as putting something back into the local community and helping to ensure players of all levels and abilities can continue to enjoy a game of football at the weekend."

The Norwich Businesses Houses League was started in 1924 with the then thriving shoe industry being a major driving force and the founding rule that all teams must be within 10 mile radius of the Norwich Inner Ring Road still holds. Today the 'Shoe Trade Cup' remains the most coveted oF the League's annual trophies.

Last season it was a clean sweep for Drayton FC who did the Treble by winning DIVISION ONE, The SHOE TRADE Cup AND DIVISION ONE LEAGUE CUP. They will be working hard to defend their trophies this year.

Energy Performance Certificates October 2008

2008-10-06T10:19:00.000+01:00

To help improve the energy efficiency of buildings and to reflect legislation, the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) was first introduced for the marketed sale of homes as part of Home Information Packs.

From 1st October 2008 the legislation was widened to state that in the event of completion of construction, sale or letting of all buildings (with some small exceptions), an EPC will need to be provided. This includes all commercial properties and homes, including those being let on assured shorthold tenancies.

All sellers and landlords will be legally required to show prospective buyers or tenants an EPC prior to selling or letting their property. Those who do not produce an EPC when required could be fined £200 but must obtain an EPC or risk further fines or penalty charge. In most cases this will be fixed at 12.5% of the rateable value of the building capped at a maximum of £5,000.

If you require any more information or want us to put you in touch with an assessor, please contact Bruce Faulkner (01603 675608 / bwf@rogers-norton.co.uk) or Marc Grieg (01603 675617 / mcg@rogers-norton.co.uk).

Rogers and Norton Solicitors coming to a YouTube screen near you

2008-09-12T16:25:00.002+01:00

Making best use of all available forms of communication in helping to get your business message across to clients and customers (both new and existing) has always been important and, perhaps, even more so than ever before in view of the current economic climate.

As part of Rogers and Norton’s continuing drive to embrace all forms of up to the minute communication, this week saw Tom Lawrence, who is a Solicitor in our private client team, take part in the first ever BNI meeting in the UK where members “60 second” presentations were digitally recorded to video before being placed on the internet website site YouTube for all to view.

Mark Hambling, who is a partner and member of the marketing development team at Rogers and Norton, said “as a firm Rogers and Norton are committed to utilising all advances in media technology to enhance our communication with our existing and potential clients, contacts and increase access to the legal profession”.

Need a change ? Amending the Articles of Association of your Company

2008-08-01T17:00:00.000+01:00

Since January 2007 the Companies Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act) has gradually been replacing the Companies Act 1985.

Changes introduced in April 2008 may affect the articles of association of your company and this is set to continue with further sections of the 2006 Act due to be implemented on 1 October 2008.

Particular changes introduced so far include:

Removing the requirement for private companies to hold an annual general meeting;
The calling of meetings on 14 days notice for a private company or public company (except for annual general meetings which require 21 days notice);
Removing the requirement to have a company secretary for private companies;
New provisions making the use of written resolutions easier;
A procedure to approve conflicts of interest;
The introduction of dispute resolution clauses;
The ability to use electronic communications.

Although the 2006 Act introduces changes. For an existing company formed prior to the introduction of the changes to take the benefit of these it may be necessary to amend its Articles of Association. We can prepare the necessary paperwork for the company.

Other changes introduced by the 2006 Act which you should also be aware of include:

The codification of directors duties;
Enforcement by the company against directors for breach of their duties;
The possibility of claims being brought against directors by
shareholders on behalf of the company;
The ability for one director to sign deeds on behalf of the company;
The need for all electronic communications to include the company's name, number and address of registered office.

If you would like any further advice on this area or would like us to amend your Articles of Association in line with the new legislation please contact Lauren Flint for further information.

Lauren Flint
01603 675605
lf@rogers-norton.co.uk

We also advise on a wide variety of commercial matters including the sale and purchase of businesses and shares in companies, shareholders agreements, franchise agreements, partnership agreements, general commercial contracts, commercial property and ancillary matters.

Personal Injury case track limits: The proposed changes

2008-07-21T17:00:00.000+01:00

Since 2007 the Ministry of Justice have consulted on reforms to the Personal Injury Claims process to achieve a quicker process where appropriate and more proportionate costs. The outcome of the consultation was published on Monday 21 st July 2008.

Several changes are proposed, aimed at speeding up the process and several options considered have been discontinued due to the force of representation. The key changes that may affect the client pursuing or resisting a personal injury claim are as follows:

The small claims track limit for personal injury claims which has been set at £1,000 for the value of the injury claim for some time will not increase.

The limit on fast track claims currently set at £15,000 will be increased to £25,000.

There will be a new claims process for road traffic accident claims where the value of the claim is £10,000 or less and there is no dispute on liability, the cause of the injury or allegations of contributory negligence. This process will be accompanied by a fixed recoverable cost system to regulate the level of costs that can be recovered.

Commenting upon the changes, Mark Hambling, a Partner in the firm’s Personal Injury Department indicated that he welcomes the Ministry of Justices’ decision to maintain the small claims limit for personal injury claims at £1,000.

“This is important in ensuring that those that unfortunately suffer personal injury claims have the ability to pursue their claim with the advice and representation of a qualified lawyer without their claim being at risk of falling into the small claims track. The initial proposals considered increasing the small claims limit for personal injury claims to £5,000 which would have prevented many cases being dealt with by solicitors and this would have significantly curtailed the access to justice for those suffering injury.”

Whilst it was perhaps inevitable that the fast track limit was going to increase, it is hoped that this will improve the speed in which relatively straightforward personal injury claims can be resolved. It is however of some concern that under the proposed reforms there is no procedure whereby complex claims which may have a value less than £25,000 but which are complex on the issues and more suited to the multi track procedure can be moved from the fast track to the multi track. This may lead to further litigation before the Court in arguing whether a case should be transferred even though the value falls within the new fast track claims limit. It will be interesting to see how Judges react to such applications.

THE NEW ROAD TRAFFIC CLAIMS PROCEDURE

This new procedure will create a system where the solicitor representing the Claimant will need to send a notification of claim to the Defendant within 5 days of obtaining all of the information required. The insurer then has only 15 days in which to respond within an indication on liability and no extensions of time are likely to be allowed. In effect in a relatively short period of time in a road traffic accident case where the value will not exceed £10,000 the insurer will have a very short period of time in which to consider liability and confirm whether this is admitted. There will then be processes whereby the solicitor would put together the medical evidence and prepare a settlement pack to send to the insurer who will then have a further 15 working days upon receipt of the pack to accept or reject an offer to settle. It is quite clear that this new process could significantly speed up the claims process however there will be a need for caution to be exercised by the solicitor to ensure that all of the medical evidence is accurate and the prognosis clear before advising a client on a full and final settlement.

It must also be noted that under this procedure, if the insurer denies liability, argues to any degree that the person bringing the claim was responsible or denies that the injuries were caused by the accident, the claim will fall out of this new procedure and proceed in line with the current process, more likely than not within the fast track limit.

CONCLUSIONS

It should be welcomed that the Ministry of Justice have maintained the small claims track limit and it is hoped that the new road traffic accident claims process will be a success. However there must be some concern that in relation to both this new process and the new fast track limit that this will include claims that are complex and perhaps not completely suited for a streamlined process. It is therefore hoped that there will be some provisions for claims that are unsuitable for the process on the issues to be moved into the multi track where appropriate.

It is however disappointing that in relation to the reforms the Ministry of Justice have not considered whether provision could be made for the better implementation of the Rehabilitation Code of Best Practice. It is as important that a Claimant receives early treatment and management of an injury at an early stage as it is that they are suitably compensated at the conclusion of the claim. It is therefore disappointing that the Code of Best Practice on Rehabilitation, which is at the moment part of the Personal Injury claims Protocol was not mentioned in the proposed reforms. It is also disappointing that the reforms do not further emphasise the need for early interim payments in suitable cases and in particular in larger claims. In the absence of any mention of this in the reforms it is likely that in the event of an insurer not voluntarily agreeing to an early payment on account, Court proceedings to seek an interim payment will have to be issued.

Finally there is no timescale in terms of the implementation of these proposals and it is therefore necessary to “watch this space” as to when the proposals are implemented and what, if any, changes are made between now and the implementation”.

For further information on the proposed changes or to discuss any specific case that you may wish to advance or defend please contact Mark Hambling on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Energy Performance Certificates

2008-07-02T17:00:00.000+01:00

Energy Performance of Buildings

(Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

From 1 July 2008 the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 will mean that any buildings that are sold, rented or built may need an Energy Performance Certificate to reflect the energy performance of the building.

If a building has a total floor area in excess of 2,500m then you will, subject to limited exceptions, be required to hold and make available an Energy Performance Certificate at the request of a prospective tenant or client if “energy is used to condition the indoor climate” for example by air conditioning or heating.

If you think these changes may affect you or one of your clients and require any further details or if you have any questions about how to comply with these changes please contact Robert Pyke or Bruce Faulkner for more information.

Robert Pyke
01603 675623
rp@rogers-norton.co.uk

Bruce Faulkner
01603 675608
bwf@rogers-norton.co.uk

http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/