Business Law Updates

Our lawyers are recommended in The Legal 500 United Kingdom 2018 editorial (listed below)

WEST MIDLANDS
Dispute resolution - Commercial litigation - Birmingham
- Dean Parnell
- Kamal Majevadia

Dispute resolution - Debt recovery
- Kamal Majevadia
- Hayley-Jo Lockley
- Gemma Parker

Finance - Insolvency and corporate recovery
- Leanne Schneider-Rose

Human resources - Employment
- Dean Parnell
- Samantha Glynn

Insurance - Clinical negligence - claimant
- Mike Sutton
- David Lydon
- Adam Hodson
-Stephen Jesson

Insurance - Personal injury - claimant
- Mike Sutton
- David Lydon
- Adam Hodson

Insurance - Professional negligence
- Sundeep Bilkhu

Private client - Contentious trusts and probate
- Kamal Majevadia (leading individual)
- Tracy Creed

Private client - Family - Birmingham
- Karen Moores
- Mauro Vinti

Private client - Personal tax, trusts and probate
-Tracy Creed ~
- Nicholas Bennett
- Ravinder Sandhu

Public sector - Health
- Dean Parnell
- Fahmida Ismail
- Tony Harris (Deceased)

Real estate - Commercial property - Birmingham
- Georgina Walsh
- Div Singh
- Fahmida Ismail

Real estate - Property litigation
- Sundeep Bilkhu
- Kamal Majevadia

Asbestos still lurks in many old or dilapidated buildings and employers who fail to protect their staff against exposure can expect severe punishment. In one case, a demolition subcontractor was hit hard in the pocket after its workmen were exposed to the substance during a school refurbishment project.

The school was built at a time when asbestos was routinely used in construction. Before the project began, an expert report revealed the presence of asbestos in various parts of the building and steps were taken to remove it safely. However, during demolition works, one of the subcontractor’s employees found a large clump of asbestos in the void above a suspended ceiling.

The discovery prompted the immediate cessation of work on the site and another survey, by a different surveyor, was commissioned which showed the widespread presence of asbestos sprayed on ceilings throughout the school, and that parts of the building that had been demolished had contained asbestos.

In those circumstances, the subcontractor was prosecuted and convicted of failing to comply with its duty under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees. The subcontractor was fined £400,000 on the basis that, had it obtained a copy of the original expert report and studied it carefully, it would have realised that it was inadequate and that a more thorough survey was required before the works could safely be started.

In dismissing the subcontractor’s challenge to the conviction, the Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent, in that it had been acquitted of breaching the duty it owed to non-employees. The different verdicts were somewhat surprising, but they were logically explicable.

The subcontractor argued that it had relied on assurances from the main site contractor, a large and reputable company, that the site was safe. However, in finding that the subcontractor’s culpability was high, the Court noted that the evidence revealed a serious and systemic failure to obtain, review and act upon relevant asbestos reports. The failings reflected a lax approach on the part of senior managers to their responsibilities over a substantial period.

In reducing the fine to £190,000, however, the Court found that the risk of the subcontractor’s employees having suffered actual harm was extremely small. An expert report showed that, if 100,000 people were exposed to asbestos to a similar extent to the subcontractor’s employees, about 90 deaths would result. By comparison, the risk of dying from smoking cigarettes is roughly one in five. The subcontractor’s appeal against a £175,000 legal costs order, however, failed.

For help and advice on Health and Safety in the workplace please contact Dean Parnell on 0808 166 8827 or email D.Parnell@SydneyMitchell.co.uk

Great news... Sydney Mitchell shortlisted for Regional Law Firm of the Year and excellent client service for its Dispute Resolution team .

click image for full list

See coverage in the Birmingham Post

A huge amount of property in the UK – especially commercial property and purpose-built buy-to-let properties such as student accommodation – is owned through the medium of overseas entities, usually in well-known tax havens. Such arrangements are also often accompanied with relatively high levels of service charges which have the effect of making the UK tax yield quite low.

Under such arrangements, the beneficial owners of the property are not public knowledge. There is also a widespread belief that such structures are used to ‘clean’ money derived from criminal activity and tax evasion.

In order to exercise some control over this, a Bill is passing through Parliament which will make it necessary for the beneficial owners of land registered at the Land Registry to be disclosed.

Failing to comply will be a criminal offence (punishable by fines and/or imprisonment) and there will be restrictions on the use or sale of land of which the beneficial ownership is unknown.

The legislation is expected to come into force in 2021.

For help and advice please contact Shilpa Unarkat, s.unarkat@sydneymitchell.co.uk  on 0808 166 8860.

Sydney Mitchell shortlisted for Medium Law Firm of the Year in the The Law Society Legal Awards

Sydney Mitchell are proud to announce that the firm has been shortlisted for Medium Law firm of the Year.  The awards will take place in London on 17th October.

The judges were extremely impressed with the quality of nominations this year. The success stories received featured a remarkable number of inspiring achievements demonstrating the outstanding skills, experience and determination that continues to drive our profession.

Sydney Mitchell are proud to be shortlisted for such a prestigious award. 

We thank our staff for their hard work and excellent service levels that result in our nomination for such awards.

Well done to all for reaching the shortlist.  To put this into context there are 10,500 law firms in the UK so it is a real accolade to be shortlisted.

Good luck to all firms at the Awards in London on 17th October 2018.

A glorious sunny but windy day saw our highly skilled golfers raise a fantastic £2600 for local Midlands’ charities. Ladbrook Park Golf Course was in excellent condition with Midway Care Group winning the competition.

Eastcote Wealth Management came in a very close 2nd place and Fahmida Ismail’s Sydney Mitchell team in 3rd place.  It was an exciting completion with Mulligans, Jokers and a yellow ball thrown in to keep players on their toes.

Freedom Technical won the Yellow Ball competition; the longest drive was won by Andy Chubb of Insol Group and the nearest to the pin winner was Richard Hales of Green Office Technologies.  Unfortunately no one won the £5000 Hole in One Prize on the 12^th however Angela Harrison was the first to get on the green with an impressive drive.

Our two Midlands’ charities will benefit from the £2600 raised on the day; Age UK Solihull* and the Buddy Bags Foundation**.

Div Singh, Senior Partner at Sydney Mitchell commented:

All players showed their generosity in supporting the fundraising and a special thank you to Automated Systems Group who sponsored the 18th hole and to Ladbrook Golf Club for donating a four-ball for the raffle.  £935 was raised from the mulligans and raffles alone.  It is great to be able to raise much needed funds for Age UK Solihull and the Buddy Bag Foundation.

Lorraine Hart of Age UK Solihull commented:

We are really grateful to Sydney Mitchell for organising the Charity Golf Day and would like to thank everyone who supported this event and for selecting Age UK Solihull for their charity this year.  Everyone needs help in later life, and it is great to be able to give that much needed support to older people in the Solihull Borough.

Alison Bird of the Buddy Bag Foundation, added:

The Buddy Bag foundation was set up to help children fleeing violent situations, often having to leave home quickly, without the chance to collect basic items.  Often children arrive in emergency accommodation with just the clothes they are wearing.  Every penny raised by charity goes to creating the Buddy bags that are given to children affected by situations beyond their Control.  Each bag costs £25 and contains the basic toiletries, pyjamas, socks, underwear, book, picture frame and a small teddy bear to provide a little comfort for them.

We thank the generosity of the players and Sydney Mitchell for supporting our Charity.

*Age UK – Solihull provides help and support to older people in the borough of Solihull. The Vision of Age UK Solihull is of a world where older people flourish and our Mission is to improve the lives of all older people in the borough. Most of our services are provided free. All the money we raise stays in solihull to help pay for our services which include information and advice, companionship and practical help.  Find out more at www.ageuksolihull.org.uk.

**The Buddy Bag Foundation was created in response to the rising number of children who enter emergency care after fleeing violent situations at home.  The Foundation helps restore a sense of safety and security into a child’s life during a traumatic time.  By providing these children with a few essential items, the charity can help make the transition into emergency care a little easier.  Over 48000 children require emergency accommodation each year in the UK.  Founder Karen Williams launched the Buddy Bag foundation in 2014 after being inspired by the Alannah and Madeline Foundation in Australia. www.buddybagfoundation.co.uk

Sydney Mitchell LLP is a Legal 500 Top Tier firm based in the Midlands with over 100 employees. The firm’s specialist teams include employment, commercial property, company and commercial services, litigation and insolvency. Private client teams include family law, residential property, dispute resolution and wills and probate, tax and trusts and personal injury.

Pictures

Winners – Midway Care Limited; Matt Harrison, Lee Harris, Ian Brown and Angela Harrison with Div Singh, Sydney Mitchell and Kam Majevadia

2^nd Place - Eastcote Wealth Management; Jonathan Hearn, Trevor Law, James Carty, John Ruddick with Div Singh, Sydney Mitchell and Kam Majevadia

3^rd Place – Sydney Mitchell; Fahmida Ismail, Aamer Janjua, Asif Din, Mohammed Shoiab with Div Singh, Sydney Mitchell and Kam Majevadia

Yellow Ball winners – Freedom Technical; Mark Reynolds, Baljit Singh, John McCormack, Narendra Patel

About Age UK Solihull

Age UK – Solihull provides help and support to older people in the borough of Solihull. The Vision of Age UK Solihull is of a world where older people flourish and our Mission is to improve the lives of all older people in the borough. Based at The Core, Central Library Building, Solihull, B91 3RG and in Chelmsley Wood Library. 0121 704 7840 info@ageuksolihull.org.uk Charity number 1055887

About the Buddy Bag Foundation

The Buddy Bag Foundation was created in response to the rising number of children who enter emergency care after fleeing violent situations at home.  The Foundation helps restore a sense of safety and security into a child’s life during a traumatic time.  By providing these children with a few essential items, the charity can help make the transition into emergency care a little easier.  Over 48000 children require emergency accommodation each year in the UK.  Founder Karen Williams launched the Buddy Bag foundation in 2014 after being inspired by the Alannah and Madeline Foundation in Australia. hello@buddybagfoundation.co.uk

www.budybagfoundation.co.uk @buddybagsuk Charity No. 1164916

Important agreements, even between close family members, should always be put into writing by a lawyer as the best means of heading off future discord. The point could hardly have been more clearly made than by a High Court dispute concerning a ramshackle football ground that set father against son.

A businessman had stepped in to save his struggling local football club when it was heavily in debt and had only 109 members. Many years later, however, the fortunes of the club were transformed when its ground was earmarked for development as part of a major urban regeneration project. As a result, the site was estimated to be worth at least £10 million.

The businessman’s son and nephew argued that, before the club’s purchase, he had agreed that they would have a 20 per cent stake in the business. A former boyfriend of his daughter also claimed a 10 per cent share. They argued, amongst other things, that the club would not have thrived had it not been for their extensive and gratuitous assistance in running it. The businessman, however, resisted their claims.

In ruling in his favour, the Court was not satisfied that he had promised the three men that they would be part-owners of the club. They had neither been answerable for the club’s debts, nor had there been a partnership or joint venture agreement. In the absence of written records, it was also impossible to identify any definite and material financial contribution made by any of them to the club’s purchase.

Whilst the Court accepted that they had worked with a view to improving the fortunes of the club, their contribution had not been exceptional and had not been linked to any assurances given to them by the businessman. Following strife within the family, they had some years ago ceased their involvement in the club. The Court concluded that they had no beneficial interest in the club, or its ground.

Contact Kam Majevadia K.Majevadia@SydneyMitchell.co.uk / Hayley-Jo h.lockley@sydneymitchell.co.uk for help and advice on 0808 166 8860

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have a variety of methods for uncovering tax evasion and find sectors with substantial cash income, such as takeaway restaurants, a source of easy pickings warns Leanne Schneider-Rose, Partner, Sydney Mitchell LLP; as well as having industry comparisons (and algorithms which automatically pick out 'suspect' VAT returns for investigation), they undertake test purchases to check gross profit margin claims, keep watch on premises to count the number of customers and so on. By the time the owner of a takeaway becomes aware of the enquiry, there is often a very impressive body of evidence in the possession of HMRC.

This was how the owners of a kebab shop in London came to be assessed for £71,000 in VAT based on HMRC's calculation that they had under-declared the takings of their shop, which was run as a company. By the time the calculation had been made of the additional Corporation Tax due and the penalties were added, the total debt of the company, now in liquidation, was nearly £300,000.

Having a limited company normally operates to protect the directors from personal liability for the company's debts, but not in cases such as this. The two owners were given 'personal liability orders' for the company's liability to HMRC.

They have also both received disqualification orders preventing them from acting as directors of a limited company or participating in the management of a company for seven years.

As soon as you receive a notice that HMRC is enquiring into your company tax affairs , you should take professional advice. There can be serious legal and financial ramifications and skilled professional advice is important.

If you wish to discuss this or other legal dispute matter, please call Leanne Schneider-Rose, Partner, Sydney Mitchell LLP on  0121 698 2200

You are entitled to object to your neighbours’ building plans, but wise homeowners always seek professional legal advice before doing so. In one case, which a homeowner who opposed construction of an extension next door ended up being ordered to pay his neighbours more than £20,000 in damages.

The man believed that the extension would be too close to his gas flue outlet and sought an injunction against the couple next door. In the event, the couple gave a formal undertaking that they would suspend the works pending resolution of the dispute. A property expert was jointly appointed to resolve the matter and the man promised that, if he turned out to be in the wrong, he would pay the couple damages.

After the expert found that the extension involved no encroachment onto the man’s property, the couple launched proceedings to hold him to his promise. While the building works were delayed by the dispute, the couple had to move out to live with a relative, to whom they paid rent. The costs of the project ballooned and they had to move their belongings into storage. They also had to cancel their Sky subscription and incurred extra costs in driving their children to and from school.

Following a hearing, a judge ordered the man to pay the couple £22,860 in damages. He was also directed to move his gas flue further away from the boundary so as to comply with building regulations. The man challenged the decision, but the High Court could find no flaw in the judge’s ruling and dismissed his appeal.

For help or advice on this or other property dispute matter, please speak to Sundeep Bilkhu, s.bilkhu@sydneymitchell.co.uk  on 0808 166 8827