Hot Topics

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

Fantastic news Sydney Mitchell has won Law Firm of the Year in the 5-15 partners' category in the Birmingham Law Society Awards 2018. A great achievement!  Thank you to all the partners and staff who made this achievement possible.

Partners Fahmida Ismail, Sarah Archer, Kam Majevadia, Tracy Creed, Dean Parnell and Mauro Vinti accepted the award on the night presented by Emma Jesson and the category sponsored by Tony Rollason (Landmark Information Group).

Fahmida Ismail commented:

What an excellent result, recognising the hard work contributed by every single person in the firm in making us exceptional and being recognised by the Birmingham Law Society as Law Firm of the Year.

We are all extremely proud to continue to serve our clients to the highest standard.  Birmingham has such a lot to offer businesses and individuals and Awards like this just continue to show that we have great quality firms and people here in Birmingham.

Sydney Mitchell 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, contentious probate, tax and trusts and personal injury.

Sydney Mitchell previously won this award in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and it is a fantastic result that the firm has won the award in 2018.

Well done to all the winners in the Birmingham Law Society Awards 2018  - full list link attached

http://www.birminghamlawsociety.co.uk/2018winners

If you would like help on any legal matters, please call 0121 698 2200 or email enquiries@sydneymitchell.co.uk or fill in our online enquiry form

Leading West Midlands’ law firm Sydney Mitchell celebrated their 11th successful quiz at The Studio in Birmingham, raising over £3000 for its nominated charities. 90 people took part in the action packed Quiz with Stoo Pittaway, of SpeedQuizzing as Guest Quizmaster. It was a fast and furious event with a few twists. Teams were able to buy chance cards, giving teams the opportunity to leap to first place, add or deduct 10-30 points during the competition.

The winner of the much coveted Sydney Mitchell Charity Quiz Trophy for 2019 was Cornwall Street Barristers ‘Cornwall St Quizzers’ who were fast and accurate on the buzzers in the last round despite Dains ‘the Forlorn Hope’ fleetingly jumping to first place after the chance cards had been applied.  Close on their heels in 2^nd place was No. 5 Chambers ‘Hoof Hearted’ and in 3^rd place Eastcote Wealth ‘11 Donald Trump’s IQ’.  Voted best team name waswon by Brewin Dolphin with ‘Don’t EU love me baby?’. 

Karen Moores, Sydney Mitchell Partner, commented:

We look forward to the quiz each year and it is great to see so many regular supporters coming year after year.  Overall we raised over £3000 from entry fees, raffle and the Chance Cards sold.  We thank everyone for their support and to Cornwall Street Barristers for the hamper raffle prize. It was great fun and raising money for two fantastic causes.

Angela Henry, Trustee of the Buddy Bag Foundation, thanked all for supporting the fundraising for their charity.

 Thank you to Sydney Mitchell for choosing us as their chosen charity. It is so great to be able to help youngsters flea perilous situations at home and the foundation would not be able to function without the generous support from our sponsors and fundraisers.

Rebecca Jacob, Digital Marketing and Fundraising Officer for Age UK Solihull, addressed all quizzers:

We are proud to be able to help our older and vulnerable residents in Solihull and Age UK Solihull would not be able to do this without the support of you all at events such as the Sydney Mitchell Charity quiz.

Sydney Mitchell is a Midlands based award winning law firm, with offices in Birmingham City Centre, Sheldon and Shirley with additional facilities in Sutton Coldfield. Offering a range of specialist legal services for both businesses and individuals, Sydney Mitchell is listed in the Top Tier of the Legal 500, Lexcel accredited and has been shortlisted for Regional Law Firm of the Year in 2019; having previously won the award in 2018, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2011 and 2008 (5-15 partners) in the Birmingham Law Society Legal Awards.

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 from the event - Sydney Mitchell 11th Charity Quiz 2019
Winners, 2nd Place and 3rd Place plus voted Best Team Name:

1st Prize - Cornwall St Barristers – Karen Moores, Partner presented Champagne to Winners
(Andrew Tucker, Karen Moores, Georgia Griffiths and Simon Bradshaw) (Cornwall Street Quizzers)

2nd Prize -   No. 5 Chambers - Eamon Hurley-Flynn, Gemma Roberts, Peter Mottram and Karen Moores Sydney Mitchell LLP (Hoof Hearted)

3^rd Prize – Eastcote Wealth - Ben Brayshaw, Rob Kenyon, Alex Haynes, Karen Moores (Sydney Mitchell LLP) (Donald Trump’s IQ)

Brewin Dolphin – Paul Fielding, Paul Hepherd, Debbie Liburne and Paul Sargent -  Don’t EU love me baby?  Best Team name presented by Stoo Pittaway

About our charities
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. The Core, Central Library Building, Solihull, B91 3RG
0121 704 7840 info@ageuksolihull.org.uk  @ageuksolihull Charity number 1055887

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.buddybagfoundation.co.uk @buddybagsuk Charity No. 1164916

The trouble with companies having only one active director is that, if he or she falls ill or is otherwise incapacitated, management can suffer severely. In a case on point, the High Court had to come to the aid of a company that found itself the target of a winding up petition despite having sufficient funds to pay all of its debts.

The company suffered poor management for about two years after its sole director and guiding mind suffered kidney failure. He underwent a kidney transplant just two days before two of the company's creditors lodged a winding up petition. A winding up order was granted by a judge after the company was refused an adjournment.

In upholding the company’s application to rescind the order, the Court noted that it had reached agreement with most of its creditors, all but one of whom supported the application. The company's solicitors held £2.4 million on its behalf: a sufficient sum to cover all of its debts and to leave £1.5 million as working capital.

The company, which clearly had substantial funds at its disposal, had put in place a new management team, and the Court found that there had been a sufficient change in its circumstances to justify rescission of the order. With some hesitation, the Court found that the company’s trading operations had been fair and above board and that there was nothing that required further investigation of its affairs.

Noting that the company’s difficulties stemmed from its deficient management over an extended period, the Court directed that at least one additional director be appointed to its board within three months. The new director must be a UK resident, independent of the company’s shareholders, and the Court recommended that a professional such as an accountant should be chosen to fill the post.

If your company receives a winding up petition or is threatened with one, seek assistance as quickly as possible.  Leanne Schneider-Rose in the firm’s restructuring and insolvency team can assist you. Please call her on 0808 166 8827 or email L.Schneider-Rose@sydneymitchell.co.uk

Proving negligence and that someone has suffered injury, loss or damage can be tricky, but the real challenge often lies in establishing the causal link between the two. The Court of Appeal confronted one such issue in a so-called ‘wrongful birth’ case.

The case concerned a woman who was concerned that she might be carrying the haemophilia gene because a relative suffered from the condition. She underwent a blood test at her local medical centre and was reassured when told that she did not have haemophilia. The GP who gave her the results of the test accepted that she had breached the duty that she owed her patient, in that the test did not establish, one way or the other, whether the woman was a carrier of the gene.

The woman became pregnant four years later and gave birth to a baby boy who suffered from both haemophilia and autism. The GP’s lawyers accepted that, had she been aware that she was a carrier, the woman would have opted to terminate her pregnancy and the boy would not have been born. On that basis, a judge awarded her £9 million in compensation, that sum representing the additional costs involved in bringing up a child with haemophilia and autism.

In upholding the GP’s challenge to that ruling, the Court noted that the woman had asked to be tested solely for the haemophilia gene. The fact that the child had also been born with autism was a matter of chance and the risk of that occurrence had not been increased by the GP’s negligent advice. The ruling meant that the woman was entitled only to the extra costs associated with rearing a child with haemophilia. Her compensation was, by agreement, reduced to £1.4 million.

For help or advice on this or other clinical negligence matter, please speak to Adam Hodson on 0808 166 5638 or a member of the Personal Injury Team.

It is a sad fact that not everyone lives to a ripe old age and that is why even young people in good health should not delay in making a professionally drafted will. In a case on point, a father’s sudden early death before he made a will threatened to deprive his ex-wife and two children of their rightful inheritance.

During the course of his first marriage, the man and his wife had lived modestly and worked hard to bring up their children and to establish a thriving family company. When they separated and divorced, however, he was the company’s sole owner. After he remarried, the company was sold and the husband received a sum of almost £5.2 million, which was paid into his second wife’s bank account.

Following the divorce, the man had maintained a good relationship with his first wife and their children. He promised that he would pay for them to be housed comfortably and that he would cover the costs of the children’s private education. However, he had done neither of those things before he died, prematurely and intestate.

In those circumstances, lawyers representing his first wife and children launched proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 with a view to obtaining reasonable provision from his estate. A declaration was also sought that the proceeds of the company’s sale fell into his estate.

The man’s second wife, however, contested the case on the basis that the millions he paid into her account were a non-returnable gift. It was also submitted that, as an American citizen, the man was not domiciled in the UK and that the Act therefore had no application to the case.

Following negotiations, however, a settlement was reached whereby the first wife would receive money and property worth a total of about £1 million. A further £950,000 would be divided between the two children. In approving the settlement, the High Court noted that it properly reflected litigation risks and avoided the trauma of what would otherwise have been a hotly contested trial.

For help and advice please contact Shelley Collingbourne on 0808 166 5638 or email SL.Collingbourne@SydneyMitchell.co.uk

This may surprise you but 3 million robo-operations were carried out world wide and it has been reported that experts predict that technological advancements over the next few years will see the use of robotic surgery rise from 0.5 % of all surgical procedures to as much as 50%. This may either impress you or horrify you, but the number of errors has the experts mildly concerned, and they want better safety mechanisms.

Despite widespread adoption of robotic systems for minimally invasive surgery, a non-negligible number of technical difficulties and complications are still being experienced during procedures

This was the conclusion of a study conducted by MIT, Rush University Medical Center, and the University of Illinois.

A limited study was carried out and two deaths and 52 injuries were identified and highlighted an issue when the mechanical surgeon spontaneously powered down mid operation or made an incorrect movement. In another 10.5 per cent of recorded malfunctions, electrical sparks burned patients, resulting in 193 injuries.

A further major problem identified, was that one death and 119 separate injuries were caused by pieces of the robot falling off into the patient, requiring a human surgical team to intervene and retrieve the broken hardware. 18 injuries were caused when the video systems on the human surgeon's console borked out mid-surgery.

At the moment robo technology is used, mainly, in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) and is a form of minimally invasive surgery that is increasingly used in a number of complex surgical procedures. Within England, this technique has developed primarily within the field of urological cancer treatment and, alongside laparoscopic techniques, but has been replacing traditional open surgical procedures.

The most dangerous kind of robot surgery is cardiothoracic and head and neck surgeries (6.4 per cent and 19.7 per cent of adverse results respectively), compared to 1.4 per cent and 1.9 per cent for gynecology and urology operations. The use of the word adverse should conjure fear.

The sophistication of technology and instruments are developing rapidly. “Snake” robots are already being designed to weave their way around the human body equipped with lights, high frequency cutters and sealers.

Whilst these numbers appear relatively small when we consider the overall number of incidents in hospitals, it is likely to become relevant with the passage of time and the increased use of robot to perform such tasks. It is therefore incumbent on those tasked with introducing robo technology that the same vigour is used to ensure such incidents are reduced to the lowest level possible and the patients welfare is not left solely to the behest of the robot.

In the event that you have been injured whilst undergoing robotic surgery please contact our Personal Injury team on 0808 166 8827 for advice.

This phrase has become notorious and conjures images of machines taking over a complacent society walking blindly into self -inflicted destruction as machines potentially become the new super predators.

This rise of technology and digital transformation among businesses of all types has led to the widespread automation of key processes in order to make workplaces as efficient as possible. With this, the rising adoption of robotics in industry means that health and safety issues are growing increasingly complex.

Manufacturing is one sector in which the use of robots is becoming increasingly widespread, but retail and healthcare have also experienced a rise in this type of operations. Robots are able to carry out tasks deemed too dangerous for humans to perform, such as lifting or moving heavy objects or handling dangerous substances. There are also new wearable robotic devices in use that can reduce the risk of injury or aid the rehabilitation of staff members who have been injured.

In scenarios where robots work alongside humans, there are a series of risks that need to be mitigated. For instance, many factories have installed cages and guards to avoid unwanted interaction between humans and fixed robots. However, with new developments in technology creating robots that can move autonomously around a workplace, new risks arise.

Cited as the first human killed by a robot, Mr Robert Williams was an assembly worker at Ford’s Flat Rock plant in Michigan. He was crushed to death by the arm of a one-tonne robot on the production line on 25 January 1979. The court concluded that he was struck on the head due to inadequate safety measures. Whilst this incident occurred some time ago, accidents like this will only increase as manufacturers and society seek to increase automation and rely upon ever changing technology.

More recently a 21-year-old, was part of a two-man team installing the stationary robot in a car plant. The young man was struck by the robot's arm and pressed against a metal plate, he unfortunately died of his injuries soon after. An argument arose and it appears the technician was apparently inside the cage when the accident occurred. According to a statement released by the manufacturers, the robot did not malfunction. However, would this accident have occurred(????) maybe, but we would contend the robot was merely fulfilling the task without regard, thought or conscience to those around and herein lies the problem. Machines fulfil their function without compassion with the end justifying the means in terms of their function. Time will tell if this aspect is ever addressed.

However, mechanism (?) should have been put in place and it was incumbent on his employers to do so. Risk assessment procedures should be carried out to ensure they account for the full range of potential hazards posed by the use of robots. Common causes associated with accidents involving robots should also include human error, control errors, mechanical failures, environmental effects, malfunctioning power sources and improper installation. In addition, employers should look closely at their employees’ skill set, as skills required to work with robots are likely to be different and more technical.

It is therefore surprising no Health and Safety legislation exists in relation to the specific use of robots in the workplace but a more generalised obligation does exist on employers to take reasonable measures to make sure their employees are kept safe

The benefits offered by the use of robotics and automation in the manufacturing industry are plentiful; however, it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that everything possible is carried out to minimise the associated risks.

In the event that you have been injured whilst at work please contact our Personal Injury team on 0808 166 8827 for advice.

A certain amount of banter can be the mark of a happy workplace, but it is all too easy for the line of acceptability to be overstepped which we see on many occasions. In a cautionary tale of which employers should take careful note, a woman who was subjected to deeply offensive sexual harassment by a colleague was awarded £20,000 in compensation (Jackson v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited).

The woman, who worked in the railway industry, was subjected to a series of highly personal and sexualised comments by her male workmate, most of them focused on the size of her breasts. In denying her allegations, the man had insisted that the office chat was mainly friendly banter about football. However, after the woman launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal found that her workmate was not a credible witness and upheld her sexual harassment claim. He had shown no insight into what he had done wrong and his demeaning comments had left the woman mortified and deeply embarrassed, adversely affecting her health and wellbeing.

Due to the employees actions the woman's employer was ordered to pay her £17,500 for injury to feelings and £2,500 in aggravated damages, plus £3,048 in interest.

Employers are advised to protect the dignity of all employees by promoting a workplace culture of tolerance and respect. Banter of a personal nature can easily cause offence and should be discouraged. Whilst we do not want to be a “fun sponge” it is important that employees know their boundaries to limit the risks that they expose their employer to.

Contact Emma-Louise Hewitt on 0808 166 8860 or email e.hewitt@sydneymitchell.co.uk to find out how we can educate your workforce on such matters.

Weak economic growth and increasing competition is still wreaking havoc in the High Street and the quarter that started in January is often make or break for retailers as it is traditionally the worst trading quarter of their year.

Many commercial properties have quarterly rent falling due in March and, as a result businesses may be tipped into administration, especially if they are already in the 'halfway house' of a Company Voluntary Arrangement with creditors.

If a tenant goes into administration or announces their intention to go into administration, the landlord is in a difficult position, because an automatic moratorium on proceedings comes into effect, which lasts for a year.

In addition, the commencement or continuation of recovery proceedings in respect of unpaid rent will require the permission of the court, and a landlord will rank equally with other creditors. The rent from the date the administration starts will be part of the administration expenses and will rank ahead of the creditors generally. This will apply if the administrator continues to occupy the premises.

If the landlord wishes to repossess the premises, it is important that nothing is done (such as accepting rent) that indicates the lease is continuing.

If you think a tenant is likely to go into insolvency, or is already a problem, we can advise you of the steps you can take. Guarantees may be enforced or put in place. If administrators or liquidators are appointed, we can help you in any negotiations.

For advice on any aspect of landlord and tenant law, contact Sundeep Bilkhu on 0808 166 8827 or email s.bilkhu@sydneymitchell.co.uk