Author: Julie Gingell

Last Saturday night, a team of fifteen SA Law employees and friends donned on their SA Law Stetsons and walking boots to take part in the annual Midnight Walk in St Albans in aid of the Grove House Hospice.

There were two routes for the walk; a five mile and ten mile walk – which all members of the team completed in the early hours of Sunday morning!

Leyla Fuad remembers that the residents of St Albans were extremely generous: “They even stopped to give us money along the route and many residents stayed up to cheer us on from their driveways and homes. It was very atmospheric!”

What added interest to the walk, was the fact that Grove House projected messages of support on the Clock Tower in the square in St Albans, live from their Twitter feed. David Linklater commented that “I have never seen anything like that in St Albans, it was fascinating to see!”

The SA Law team thoroughly enjoyed themselves, Victoria Thomson, said that she would definitely be doing it again next year and encourage more people to join her next time! Charlotte Cheshire also added that it was great to see so many people coming together to raise money for such a good cause.

The team raised over £1,000 as a group effort for charity: “we couldn’t have been more pleased!” says Sarah Coughlan who helped organise the SA Law team.

If you would like to sponsor our efforts, you still can at http://www.justgiving.com/SALawMidnightWalk

Author: Julie Gingell

Saturday June 11th saw the Peace Hospice’s biggest Starlight Walk yet with fundraisers hoping that this year’s event will break the £1 million barrier. This year for the first time there was a six mile route alongside the usual thirteen mile route. The six mile route is wheelchair friendly and was designed for women who may have found the thought of the half marathon daunting but still want to participate in the fun!

SA Law have been delighted to be involved with this event for the past three years, Julie Gingell Director of Marketing and Business Development at SA Law said “We have supported this event for a number of years as we feel it is so worthwhile. The Peace Hospice is an important part of the local community caring for terminally ill people and their families and we are proud to be associated with them.”

The money raised form the Starlight Walk supports families across South West Hertfordshire, and SA Law are proud to sponsor this event each year.

To find out more about SA Law in the Community click here

Author: Julie Gingell

The June 23rd 2011 issue of The Herts Advertiser outlines how a team of 20 people from SA Law are donning tutus and glittery stetsons for the Grove House Midnight Walk on Saturday.

Many of the team at SA Law know people who have benefited from the services at Grove House, which makes the charity particularly special to SA Law.

If you would like to sponsor our team, please click here.

If you would like to find out more about SA Law and the community click here

Author: David Linklater

As I have mentioned in a recent blog, break clauses are often tricky to operate and a tenant may have to meet certain conditions in order to ensure that the break option has been validly exercised.

A condition sometimes found in break clauses is that the tenant must on the break date give to the landlord vacant possession of the premises.  Whilst this sounds a simple enough proposition, sometimes tenants do fall foul of this requirement.

The Court of Appeal was called to rule on such a situation in the recent case of NYK Logistics (UK) v Ibrend Estates BV.

The facts of the case are straightforward.  The tenant served a break notice and one of the conditions of the break option was that the landlord was to be given vacant possession on the break date.  The tenant commenced works to put the premises into the condition required by the lease, but as the break date approached, it became apparent that the works would overrun.

At that stage, the tenant entered into discussions with the landlord, seeking permission to remain in occupation until the works were completed, without prejudicing the break right.  No agreement to that effect was reached.  On and after the break date, the tenant remained in occupation of the premises, still had keys and had security guards in place, and had not cleared the premises of its belongings.

The tenant believed that the lease ended on the break date, claiming that by entering into negotiations with the tenant, the landlord had waived the requirement for vacant possession.  The landlord stated that it was never its intention to waive the requirement.

The case served as a useful reminder of the questions that the Court will ask when considering compliance:

•    Was the party that was required to give vacant possession still actually using the premises for it own purposes?

•    Is the physical condition of the premises in such a state that there is no substantial impediment to use of the premises, or a substantial part of it, by the party taking the premises?

The Court of Appeal found that the tenant had taken no steps to comply with the first point above.  The second point is rarely problematic and certainly wasn’t in this case, as physical impediments have to be onerous to the extreme in order to cause a tenant to fail that test.

The Court also found that there was no evidence of waiver.  Waiver is a very difficult concept to prove and really should only be used as a last resort, rather than something to be relied on prior to an event.

This judgment reiterates the importance of taking legal advice prior to exercising any break option and highlights the need to seek clarification on any points of ambiguity.  Conditions must be strictly adhered to and landlords (and the Court) are unlikely to assist a tenant that falls foul of those conditions.

For further information about our Property Litigation services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact David Linklater at our St Albans office by email at david.linklater@salaw.com or on 01727 798000.

© SA LAW 2011

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: David Linklater

The current economic climate has seen a number of commercial tenants looking to reduce overheads and a popular way of doing so is by disposing of unwanted premises.  Many leases contain break clauses allowing early termination by a tenant and these are becoming increasingly exercised.  Landlords, of course, will often seek to challenge a defective break notice, so it is essential to serve a break notice in accordance with the requirements of the lease.

The recent case of MW Trustees and others v Telular Corporation highlighted the potential pitfalls that can be encountered in exercising a break clause.

In that case, the tenant prepared and served the break notice itself, unfortunately addressing and sending the notice to the original landlord, rather than its current landlord.  The original landlord informed the tenant that the property had been transferred and the tenant emailed the new landlord a copy of the break notice that had been sent to the original landlord.

The new landlord’s managing agent sent an email to the tenant, saying:-

“We accept the attached letter and can confirm that we are happy for you to break the lease, however, please could you re-address this letter to [the new landlord]”

On the same day, the new landlord sent an email to the tenant, asking for details of the subtenant and asking when the lease would end.

The tenant failed to re-serve the break notice and at the break date, the landlord argued that the tenant had failed to properly exercise the break.

In addressing the break notice to the wrong landlord, the tenant had clearly failed to properly serve the break notice and in most cases, the lease would simply continue.  In the current case, however, the tenant successfully argued that the emails from the managing agent and landlord  respectively combined to demonstrate that the landlord had waived the invalidity of the break notice and accepted that as a result the lease would end.

Whilst the tenant must have felt incredibly relieved at the outcome of this decision, it was saved by the actions of the landlord and the managing agent, rather than through any action on its own part.  The tenant clearly had a very lucky escape – most recent cases that have been before the courts on this point have been decided against the tenant.

The above demonstrates the importance of careful drafting of break notices.  Mistakes can be incredibly costly.  In addition to ensuring service by and to the correct party, it is important to ensure that all conditions of a break clause are met.

For further information about our Property Litigation services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact David Linklater at our St Albans office by email at david.linklater@salaw.com or on 01727 798000.

© SA LAW 2011

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Chris Wilks

“As is often the case with new legislation, when the Bribery Bill was first published there were alarmist stories in the media announcing “the end of corporate hospitality”. I am pleased to say this scaremongering has now been shown to be nonsense. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that bona fide hospitality, which is not excessive, unreasonable or unduly lavish, but simply seeks to improve the image of a business or foster friendly relations with customers and potential customers, is recognised as an important part of commerce. It is not…”

Chris Wilks explains what the new Bribery Act means for businesses in an article published by www.freshbusinessthinking.com. Click here to read the full article.

Author: Chris Cook

Last week Facebook was accused of invading personal privacy “by stealth” after it started using facial recognition technology without informing its users.  The technology scans faces of people in tagged pictures and matches that information with other pictures to allow users to tag them automatically.

The technology has been used in the US version of Facebook for a number of months, although in that situation users were informed of the pending introduction of facial recognition technology weeks in advance.

While the majority of users will not be concerned as to the introduction of this technology, concerned users are able to disable the technology by adjusting their privacy settings so as to effectively “opt out” of the service.  However, bearing in mind the current data protection legislation, there is some debate as to whether Facebook has gone about this in the right way.

Where individuals can be identified from photographs on the Facebook site, the information will constitute personal data within the remit of the Data Protection Act 1998.  This in turn would necessitate the person using the photographs to have obtained the consent of all of the individuals appearing in the photograph before posting on a social networking site.  While this would not necessarily be a problem where those individuals are tagged to each other on the Facebook site, it is arguably an infringement of the Data Protection Act for processing personal information without having obtained prior consent.

These issues can also be translated into the workplace, where photographs of employees routinely appear on business websites without due consideration having been given to legal compliance issues.  It is important to obtain prior written consent from all individuals for their photograph to appear on your business’ website before it is used.

If you feel that the time has come to review your business’ usage of personal data belonging both to customers and employees to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act, please contact Chris Cook on 01727 798019 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com

Author: Jacqueline Button

Its been a bad week for some retailers. Comet are the latest multiple to announce planned store closures (22 are to be sold), New Look have announced bad results and don’t get me started on the subject of HMV and their refinancing which indirectly makes us, their tax-paying customers, part owners of the struggling brand.

But elsewhere, in a land of ice, frost and frozen food things are looking up. This week Iceland announced a record year with pre-tax profits of £155.5m up 14.8% from last year which in itself was a good one. During the last financial year the retailer opened 21 new stores and plans another 15. These are impressive figures. Iceland is doing well under the management of founder Malcolm Walker who, along with his team, owns 23% of the business.

Not all mums go to Iceland and I’m afraid that I’m one of the heathens who goes to Sainsburys instead. A visit to an Iceland store however does a lot to make even the snobbiest shopper think twice about taking their 4X4 to Waitrose. The stores aren’t the most ascetically pleasing on the high street but the offering is broad and the food is cheap. No, its not made by Heston Blumenthal or advertised by the suave and classy Rupert Penry-Jones but when most of the products cost £5 or less you don’t expect it to be. In fact, the face of Iceland is now reality “star” Stacey Solomon, a big step up in wholesomeness (not to mention singing ability) from the disgraced former “star” Kerry Katona.

Iceland’s website follows suit: its not going to win design prizes in cyberspace but its clear, colourful and helpful. There is a section for “busy mums” and information on healthy food and home delivery.

So has Iceland had it easy during this never-ending period which feels as dark as the days of an Icelandic winter? They’re a value retailer (but so are New Look) and they sell food (but mainly food – no diverse offering like Asda, Tesco and Sainsburys to spread the risk). Yes, they’ve had it easier than some but their profits and their expansion and the fact that they are being eyed-up for a takeover by both Asda and Morrisons speak for themselves.

But, as with all retailers, Iceland could do better. Walker says “we know we’re doing the right things as our existing customers are spending more money with us”. They need to do even more right things to attract new customers. My suggestions: instore cafes (always popular with busy mums), premium brands and don’t sell to Asda, Morrisons or anyone else. Iceland is a successful retailer. Its not glamorous or luxurious but it does what it does really well and with a few improvements it might divert some of those 4X4s away from Waitrose.

Author: Peter Goodman

The Indy 500 is not well known in Europe but it should be. In most of the world it is perceived as the world’s number one motor race, ahead of the Monaco Grand Prix (held on the same day), the Daytona 500, the Le Mans 24 hours race and the Monte Carlo Rally. Indisputably it is the world’s largest single day sporting event. There are 250,000 seats outside the two and a half mile oval, many tens of thousands of seats inside the track and many large corporate boxes. It is also a race of great heritage, last week’s event was the 95th Indy 500. By contrast last weekend’s Monaco GP was “only” the 69th!

I have been lucky enough to watch the Indy 500 on four occasions; from the pits, the iconic Pagoda and from the hospitality suites. The atmosphere is incredible. The cars corner at more than 200 mph and average 230mph around the lap. Formula One cars never reach these speeds.

In last week’s race there were two SA Law clients. Dario Franchitti, who won last year and in 2007 and Dan Wheldon who won in 2005 and had been second in 2009 and 2010. Dario was hot favourite, being also the reigning IRL Champion but Dan was a complete outsider. Bizarrely he doesn’t even have a drive in this year’s IRL Championship. Imagine, if you can, a driver without a regular drive in Formula One taking part in the Monaco GP.

The race was gripping with its fair share of accidents on track and misfortunes in the pit lane. As with the Monaco GP it also had its element of tension as some cars struggled to stretch the fuel in their tanks over the last few laps. One by one these cars had to stop to refuel and so lost their chance of winning the race. Included in this group were Dario Franchitti and America’s darling, Danica Patrick.

Amazingly it looked as though American rookie Jay Hildebrand was going to win. Jay’s a young but not a particularly successful driver but his race engineer did by far the best job in the fuel conservation gamble. Jay was leading by 8 seconds (getting on for half a mile at those speeds) as he entered the last lap and by 5 seconds as he entered the last corner. Incredibly he lost control as he entered the home straight and crashed into the barriers sliding at high speed towards the chequered flag. As he did this only one car was close enough to overtake him, Dan Wheldon! What an amazing, and fortuitous victory, but perhaps after coming second two years in a row he deserved a bit of luck.

The only British drivers to win the Indy 500 are Dan Wheldon, Dario Franchitti, Jim Clark and Graham Hill.

Author: Julie Gingell

Entries are now being taken for SA Law’s 2011 Smart Alecs Quiz Night – the charity event, in aid of the Willow Foundation, that sees teams of local businesses battle it out for the right to call themselves Smart Alecs.

And do we have a treat for you this year. In addition to our regular smorgasbord of general knowledge, teams will be shooting that poison arrow back to music of the 70s, 80s and 90s with our special 2011 guest quizmaster Mike Read. As a former Radio 1 breakfast show DJ and Pop Quiz presenter, Mike will be testing our knowledge of famous songs and recording artists.

With a night that promises to be even more fun-filled than last year, new teams will be joining regular supporters on Thursday 7th July at Watford Football Club.

If you have yet to experience a Smart Alecs night, then please join us. Not only are we raising money for a great cause, we guarantee you’ll be walking on sunshine all the way home!

The price to participate is £250 for a team of six, which covers charity donation, entry to the quiz, a ‘hot-fork’ buffet and a glass of wine.

To enter, simply download our entry form. If you have any questions, or would like to join in but are unable to make up a team of six, please contact Victoria Thomson on 01727 798076 or by email.

Support The Willow Foundation

The annual Smart Alec’s Charity Quiz Night is held in aid of The Willow Foundation – the national charity that provides special days out for 16 to 40 year-olds with life threatening illnesses. Based in Hatfield, the charity was set up by Arsenal legend Bob Wilson and his wife Megs in memory of their daughter Anna who died of cancer aged just 31.