High Court Success for Litigation Team - Think before you Tweet

Our highly recognised Litigation Team has enjoyed more success for clients in the High Court following clients being the subject of defamatory tweets and facebook postings.

Defamatory Comments on Social Media

Social media is a great medium for people and society in general, but it is a uniquely effective breeding ground for potentially libelous statements. Postings are often made with little forethought or planning and in fits of anger and frustration – they can be deleted, but very often not before they have been seen and noted by a multitude of other users.

Countless people have learned to their dismay that the internet allows people to speak their mind far too easily - It is full of interesting places where someone could intentionally or accidentally leave potentially defamatory comments or posts.

Just a few of these locations are:

• letters to the editor of local newspapers
• public comments on media (i.e., newspaper or magazine) web sites
• blogs and comments to blog postings
• social media like Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter
• chat rooms or list servers.

While some web sites screen posts for inflammatory or illegal content, the screening systems are not geared to examine every post for defamatory content, and so many questionable postings end up online.

People may be of the opinion that any postings they make are simply their opinion, but they will probably be seen by many readers as statements of fact and so believed and passed on to others.

Injunction

Our Litigation Team immediately commenced High Court proceedings seeking an injunction, damages and costs against a former employee of our client who posted highly defamatory remarks that could be seen publically, on both Twitter and Facebook, about our client and one of their employees. The Court accepted that that the words used on the postings were likely to cause a serious financial loss to our client  – the response to the Facebook posts by other users illustrated that statements had been taken at face value.  

The Defendant has been ordered to permanently delete three defamatory tweets and nine defamatory Facebook posts. The Defendant must also refrain from publishing or causing to be published any other online posts of this nature about our client and their employee. Significant damages and costs were also awarded.

If you have been the subject of defamatory on line comments, there is a real need to act quickly – we can offer the support and guidance necessary in these stressful and upsetting circumstances. The Litigation team have the resource and experience required to secure urgent injunctions at short notice.

For those who wish to post something online that can be widely viewed, you need to give it some serious thought first. Once you have clicked “send,” you can’t take it back.

If you need advice or guidance on the matter please contact our litigation team on 01603 666001 or email ph@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Increase in instructions as business and individuals stock up for their Christmas trade

Rogers and Norton’s HMRC and Border Force team have reported an increase in instructions as business and individuals “stock up” for their Christmas trade. 

Peter Hastings comments “In the past few weeks, we have had a flurry of instructions from clients who have had their goods (alcohol and tobacco/cigarettes) seized at various locations throughout the UK. If HMRC’s officers consider the goods are for commercial purpose, for example if  the quantity exceeds the recommend guidelines of 1kg, they could seize the goods and also the car that has been used to transport the goods. We are challenging a number of seizures by way of condemnation proceedings, and  seeking the restoration of goods by way of Review and to the First Tier Tax Tribunal. In particular, we are contending that the seizure will cause hardship and that exceptional circumstances apply”.

 Peter adds, “We are  also challenging seizures for goods imported for the Christmas toy market, which HMRC have seized on the suspicion that there is some form of irregularity such as the documentation has discrepancies or the purchase cost is too low or the tariff is disputed. Recent seizures include goods valued at £60,000 and £75,000”.

The team is also busy on other HMRC and Border Force matters. Recently,  the team has been instructed to seek a VAT refund for a client in excess of £3 million, and is challenging a number of assessments where the tariff code is disputed, VAT and Duty issues, Anti-Dumping claims, and also Notices for Security under Paragraph 4 (2) a of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The team is able to assist with both civil and criminal investigations instigated by HMRC, the appointments of Provisional Liquidators, appealing the refusal to register an applicant as an owner of excise goods under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999 and Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (AWRS).

For more information contact Peter Hastings on 01603 675603 or peter.hastings@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Court of Appeal Reviews Beneficiaries’ Rights

Court of Appeal Reviews Beneficiaries’ Rights

 

In the recently well publicised case of Ilott v Mitson,  Mrs Ilott successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and received £163,000 from her mother’s estate despite not being named as a beneficiary under the Will.  The circumstances of this case are further surprising as Mrs Ilott had been estranged from her mother for the majority of her adult life despite three attempts at reconciliation.

Family Circumstances

Louisa Shailes of our Private Client team explains; “ Mrs Ilott was brought up solely by her mother following the death of her father before her birth.  At 17 Mrs Ilott left home to live with Mr Ilott without her mother’s approval.  She later married and had 5 children with Mr Ilott but her relationship with her mother never improved.  Mrs Ilott lives in a housing association property and her family is supported by various benefits.

Mrs Ilott’s mother passed away leaving a Will, supported by two side letters explaining her reasoning, leaving nothing to her daughter or wider family but leaving her estate valued at £486,000 equally between three charities.

Judgment from Court of Appeal

Peter Hastings of our litigation team comments “The claim was brought by Mrs Ilott under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 which allows, amongst other categories, children of the deceased to bring a claim upon the estate for reasonable provision.
It was found that Mrs Ilott should not be penalised for a lack of expectation of receiving anything from her mother’s estate as the charities had no expectation either as the deceased had no previous connection with the charities in her lifetime. It was also found that the estrangement between the parties should not deprive the appellant of an award.

The testamentary wishes of the deceased has been limited by Parliament as they have “entrusted the courts with the power to ensure, in the case of even an adult child, that reasonable financial provision is made”. The court felt that the limitation on the award for an adult child being limited to provision by way of maintenance was enough to balance the testamentary wishes of the deceased with the needs of the appellant.

The appellant’s income, earning capacity and lack of pension contributed to the court’s reasoning that despite Mrs Ilott being an independent adult child she survived on such a basic level of resources that she was awarded £143,000 to purchase her local authority house. She was also given the option to receive a further award of £20,000 from the estate to provide extra income without affecting the benefits she receives”.

Conclusion

Louisa Shailes adds “Despite the somewhat surprising outcome of the case, it is important to remember that the award made was specific on the facts of this case.  It is clear from the judgment that the court considered all factors set out in Section 3 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act) 1975 in making their award and therefore there is no new law in the case.  It does, however, appear to show that the court will consider family members claims despite testamentary wishes and consider their maintenance needs”.

It is always important to consider any potential claims upon your estate despite the general rule that you can leave your estate as you wish.  If you would like to discuss your Will and any of the above issues with one of our private client team, please contact Louisa Shailes (louisa.shailes@rogers-norton.co.uk) and for advice on seeking to challenge a Will, please contact Peter Hastings (peter.hastings@rogers-norton.co.uk).

The Final Movember Update !

30 days on and it's nearly all over! So far the Ro No Mo Bros have raised £792 in online donations and £90 in cash/cheques and in most cases not exactly looked our best for the past month! (see attached photos!)

Many thanks to those of you who have donated so far.

We would however really like to break the £1000 barrier so if anyone else would like to donate now that the challenge has been successfully completed it is not too late to do so and we would welcome any donation however small.

You can do so by clicking on the link below and then clicking on 'donate to team' or on individual team members names in the 'team summary' list:-

http://uk.movember.com/team/660541

Many thanks for your support so far. Other than updating you as to the final amount raised we promise this is the last message you will receive on the subject until it all starts again next Movember!

All the best

The Ro No Mo Bros

Click below for a larger pic!

Successes for Rogers and Norton Litigation Team

Rogers & Norton's litigation team is delighted to report two recent successes on claims involving HM Revenue and Customs and the Border Agency.

The team, led by Peter Hastings, acted for a company who had been served with an assessment for alleged excise duty for a sum in excess of £200,000. On review, and after a detailed submission on matters of European law and UK law and the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, the assessment was withdrawn, much to the delight of the Firm's client.

The team also acted for an International Company who imported silver granules into the UK which were detained but released after representations made by the team, including the failure of HMRC and the Border Agency to provide sufficient grounds to justify detention.

Peter commented "In both cases, substantial sums were involved and there could have been serious consequences for these businesses if we had not acted quickly and successfully.  Our work in connection with HMRC has expanded considerably and with great success".

The team is currently acting on numerous other cases involving HMRC and the Border Agency including a seizure of gold, advising on misfeasance claims and insolvency related matters. It represents clients locally, throughout the UK and Internationally and also appears in the Tax Tribunal and conducts Judicial Review proceedings in addition to Appeals and Condemnation Proceedings.

For more information please contact:

Peter Hastings
Partner
peter.hastings@rogers-norton.co.uk
01603 675639

R&N assists LSI Architects with new venture

As has been reported recently, LSI Architects have expanded their services into Qatar.  Rogers and Norton were delighted to assist LSI Architects with their legal requirements for their exciting expansion and construction works in Qatar.

Peter Hastings comments:

"Trevor Price and his team have researched the Qatar market for sometime now, and when the plans were coming to fruition, our construction and commercial teams advised and assisted on the required legal and business formalities, including the drafting of construction contracts. 

We wish LSI every success in their new venture."

Peter adds "In recent months, we have seen an increase in international work for our commercial and litigation teams, receiving instructions from clients based in Dubai, the Caribbean and throughout Europe.

In particular, we have recieved instructions to act on a multi-million pound Arbitation, which is proceeding through the International Court of Arbitration and disputes with HMRC (Customs and Excise) and the Border Agency."

Top Legal Directory praises expanding Rogers & Norton

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 ?

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.

Rogers and Norton host Bribery Act seminar

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.

Concern as taxman cries foul over ‘unfair’ soccer ruling

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.

New Consumer Credit Directive

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 Act for Oceanteam II BV

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

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.

R&N Continue with Expansion Programme

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