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.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
R&N Employment Newsletter
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
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
Monday, June 20, 2011
Shared parenting – a move in the right direction?
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Lone Workers Seminars
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The importance of file notes for Surveyors and other professionals
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
