Trainees are free to choose their own team challenge that will benefit a group within our local community. The target for each Trainee team is to contribute at least £5000 in either volunteered time or money raised for the chosen cause.

The Trainees will be actively supported by all members of the firm.

At SA Law, we believe that being a good corporate organisation in the community, conducting business in an ethical way and supporting voluntary and philanthropic actions is imperative. This is an ethos that we instill across our activities and amongst our staff.

We will keep you updated with our trainees progress and hope you will join us in supporting them.

For more information about the SA Law Trainee Community Challenge, contact CSR Chair Leyla Fuad or Training Principal Terence Ritchie.

To find out more about SA Law in the community, click here.

SA Law has been recognised as a leading regional practice by independent legal research bodies Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500, in addition to achieving The Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation.

A leading publisher of legal research, Chambers conducts thousands of interviews with lawyers and their clients every year to identify regional leaders around the world.
All of SA Law’s departments have been recognised as regional leaders in the Northern Home Counties, with Managing Partner Steve Ryan cited as a top tier lawyer: “These achievements are extremely important in a sector that suffers from fierce competition in a slow economy. Achieving recognised first class credentials in the marketplace has never been more essential.” Adds Steve Ryan.

To find out more about SA Law and how our dedicated team can assist your business, visit our website www.salaw.com

The problems appear to have evolved over a disputed tax bill, in so far that the club is awaiting a tax tribunal decision which could result in liabilities and penalties exceeding £50m, which, Rangers said it cannot pay.

The case relates to the use of employment benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players, which HMRC argue Rangers have misused to avoid paying tax. HMRC have stated that they will appeal the decision if it goes against them, leaving Rangers exposed to prolonged financial uncertainty.

Chairman Craig Whyte also points to inherent problems with the financial structure at Rangers as a further reason to call in Administrators. He has stated that the move to administration is “the most practical way to safeguard the long-term future of the club is to go through a formal restructuring process”.

With the threat of a HMRC winding-up petition, Rangers will likely seek the protection of a moratorium against such action through entry into a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) with its  creditors. It has also emerged that Criag Whyte is the club’s main secured creditor, by which, he could look to secure Rangers’ future by entering the Company by which the club is incorporated into  a pre-pack administration to satisfy the clubs debts to him personally. Either way however a move into administration is likely to  lead to extensive cost-cutting with potential job loss.

This is a big development in the world of football insolvency where the icy chill of taxation continues to blow. With Portsmouth also taking steps to enter administration yesterday and the thorny issue of the Football Creditor Rule (where uniquely, debts owed as transfer fees and player wages are paid in priority to other creditors) still subject to court action, Football’s Finances could be said to have never been so turbulent. Click here to read more.

Ben Ashworth is a Commercial Dispute Resolution Solicitor specialising in Debt Recovery.

What is the Public Services (Social Value) Bill?
The aim of the Bill is to make social value – ie “economic, social and environmental well-being” more relevant in the placing and provision of public services.

The Bill started off life as the Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill in 2010 and although some organisations have expressed disappointment that the bill has been diluted during the parliamentary process, generally it is being hailed as legislation that will have a ‘profound impact’ on the commissioning and procurement process, with social enterprises, charities and other community-based groups being presented with huge opportunities.

What could this mean for Charities and Social Enterprises?
If the Bill becomes law (which now appears likely) this would mean a significant shift in focus from a simple assessment of the ‘bottom line’ price to consideration of the much wider concept of the social value that can be offered.  This means public authorities will be under a duty to consider how what is being procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area in which it operates, and how it can act with a view to securing that improvement during the procurement process.

In order to take advantage of this, not-for-profit organisations will need to consider carefully how they can best demonstrate the social value that they are able to offer and provide appropriate evidence.  Social value is something that will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with only matters relevant to the what is being procured being taken into account, and only to the extent to which it is proportionate in the circumstances to taken those matters into account.

In addition it has been said that the Bill may assist British based companies to secure contracts in preference to foreign based companies (such as the recent award of the Thameslink contract to the German manufacturer Siemens over Derbyshire based company Bombadier).

Watch this space for further developments in the progress of the Bill…

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798017 or by email at keely.rushmore@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
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 case.

Avocet was a commercial tenant and served a break notice to terminate its lease.

The break right, as is often the case, was conditional and required Avocet to pay all rent and “other sums” due under the lease.  It also had to pay a premium.

The tenant paid the premium by cheque, which was delivered to the landlord one day before the break date.  The tenant had a history of paying rent late and the lease provided that the tenant should pay interest on late payments.
Whilst the landlord had indicated that it wanted interest to be paid, it had not invoiced for interest.  The tenant had dismissed the landlord’s request for interest as “silly”.

The tenant vacated the premises and handed it back on the break date.  The landlord refused to accept that the tenant had validly exercised the break, arguing that the premium was not “paid” when the cheque was received (as it had not cleared), and the interest on late cheque payments should have been paid as well.

The disputed interest was approximately £130.

The Court found that the supply of the cheque meant that the premium had been “paid”, as there was an implied agreement that payment could be made by cheque.

However, interest should have been paid as well and therefore the break notice was ineffective and the lease continued.  This was the case even though the landlord had not invoiced for the interest because the lease stated that interest was “payable” regardless of whether or not a formal demand had been made.

As a result of the failure to pay the £130 interest, the tenant now finds itself in a lease that is does not want, which in theory will result in a liability in excess of £300,000.

The break clause in Avocet was not unusual and the provisions regarding interest are also commonplace.  This scenario will affect tenants who have throughout the course of a tenancy paid any sums by cheque, or been at all late in making any payments to the landlord.

A failure to pay any interest due could therefore potentially invalidate a break.  The key to this is in the wording of the lease and if in doubt, legal advice should be sought.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact David Linklater on 01727 798097 or by email at david.linklater@salaw.com or any member of the Property Litigation Team.

© SA LAW 2012
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 case.

An Employment Tribunal recently awarded the staggering sum of £4.5 million by way of compensation for unlawful sex and race discrimination (a figure which the tabloids have pointed out would be enough to pay 210 nurses for a year). This is thought to be the highest ever discrimination award made in the UK.

Polish born Dr Eva Michalak was employed by the Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust as a consultant.  She claimed that she took maternity leave and on her return raised concerns about payments made to colleagues in her absence (but not to her) which lead to a concerted campaign by the Trust (referred to in the proceedings as the “Get Eva” campaign) to end her employment.  As part of this campaign she claimed that she was subjected to a bogus disciplinary procedure and an unjustified and lengthy period of suspension from 2006 which culminated in her dismissal in 2008.  She said that her dismissal was the conclusion of an extensive process of sex and race discrimination related to the fact that she’d made a protected disclosure and amounted to disability discrimination. The Tribunal accepted her arguments and went so far as it say it was ‘positively outraged’ by her treatment by the Trust and senior employees within it.

It would be fair to say that the case is exceptional. As a result of her treatment by the Trust she developed a chronic and disabling post-traumatic stress disorder, together with depression and anxiety. The Tribunal were told how she was left unable to accomplish the simplest of tasks without oversight and supervision, leading to her husband having to give up work to care for her.  The Tribunal concluded that she would never work again.

Dr Michalak earned just short of £90,000 in her post.  The £4.5 million figure was based on numerous heads of loss, including £30,000 for injury to feelings, £50,000 for psychiatric injury, £170,000 for lost earnings to date, £941,000 for future loss of salary (taking her to retirement age), £666,000 for pension losses, £50,000 for medical treatment, £43,000 for past care and £31,000 for future care. The dismissal had taken place when the statutory grievance and dismissal procedures were in place and therefore the Tribunal had discretion to award a 50% uplift in respect of Trust’s failure to follow the statutory grievance procedure.  The Tribunal said that it would have had ‘no hesitation’ in ordering the full 50% uplift were it not for the amount this would translate to in monetary terms, and instead elected to apply a more modest 15% figure.  A significant portion of the £4.5 million (almost £2 million) was an uplift to take into account the fact that the compensation would for the most part be taxable.  The Tribunal concluded that the Trust and some named respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the award.

This was certainly an exceptional case but serves as a reminder of the huge potential liabilities that can arise in discrimination cases and the need to ensure that staff receive and understand equal opportunities training.

For more information about Equal Opportunities training, click here.
To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798017 or by email at keely.rushmore@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
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 case.

The Tribunal found that Mr Browne had been subjected to “systematic discrimination” and “an intimidating environment” from 2007 until his dismissal in 2008 – although the losing Respondent did not see it that way and have appealed the decision.

Mr Browne worked for the Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for 34 years, and became the first and only black man to hold the position of divisional director for clinical scientific services with the Trust.

Following the Trust’s concerns regarding budget management and leadership in his department, Mr Browne raised what the Tribunal deemed a “well-founded” complaint of discrimination. He claimed that his singling out for criticism was unfair and discriminatory when compared with his employer’s treatment of white colleagues. Following his complaint, the Trust were found by the Tribunal to have “closed ranks” and began disciplinary proceedings to dismiss him.

As a result, Mr Browne was signed off work with stress and claimed his employer’s treatment had left him close to a breakdown. Mr Browne was supported in his claim by Unite who called for the Trust to “tackle its culture of institutionalised racism.” The Tribunal award compensated Mr Browne for aggravated damages, demonstrating its view that the treatment suffered had a severe impact on his health.

This level of award, whilst unusual, demonstrates the Tribunal’s current view towards claims of discrimination. In the last 2-3 years we have noticed a marked shift in the Tribunal’s approach and the line of questioning used in hearings, which focuses on ‘subconscious discrimination’ to determine whether there is an inherent culture of discrimination within a workplace.

What is also important to understand is that while the Tribunal found that the treatment amounted to race discrimination, the Respondent did not appear to believe they discriminated.  We can also speculate about why the Respondent did not settle the matter before trial if it was in any way apparent to the Respondent or their legal team that they would lose to such an extent.  This shows that spotting the risks of such a case occurring in any organisation is not that straight forward.

Vanessa James is a Partner and Head of the Employment Department at SA Law. Vanessa specialises in discrimination claims, shareholder disputes and employee disputes.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Vanessa James on 01727 798089 or by email at vanessa.james@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
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 case

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now explained that the aim of the policy is mainly to encourage recruitment and it does not believe that it is “appropriate or necessary to apply it to those already in work”.

The Government has confirmed that employees starting work before 6 April 2012 will be able to make unfair dismissal claims after one year’s service. The new two-year period of qualification will only apply to those who commence employment on or after 6 April 2012. As well as giving employers greater confidence to take new people on, it is also hoped to provide more time for employers and employees to resolve their difficulties as well as easing constraints on the employment tribunal process.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798017 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
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 case.

These words hit the press around 3.30pm on Wednesday 18 January.

The news was quite a shock to motorsports fans across the World but their shock was nothing compared to the shock suffered by my client and, to a lesser extent, by myself. Let me back up a bit.

Peugeot has an excellent history in Le Mans type racing and in the last few years they have been the quickest car. Last year they didn’t win Le Mans but they won just about everything else and, to the outsider, all looked great for the Team. There was no hint of a withdrawal.

I have quite a few motorsports clients, both drivers and teams. Some are multi millionaires, some are on the fast track to the glamour and riches of formula One but many are hard working talented drivers who don’t have wealthy or well connected parents or a manufacturer supporting them. One such client, let’s call him client A, has worked really hard against the odds for years, like Robert Bruce’s spider, and was on the cusp of achieving the top rung on the ladder when Wednesday’s news came in.

The timeline is really quite extraordinary. Client A’s manager contacted me last Sunday afternoon. Client A had finally made it after many years of slow progress up the sportscar ladder. A final test in the all conquering Peugeot 908 was to take place in Sebring, Florida. There was every chance that the test would lead to a race seat at Le Mans and possibly also in the new World Endurance Championship. At the very least it would give him a chance to impress one of the two top teams in endurance sportscar racing.

Then there was a delay. So often there is a delay in the world of motor racing. It seems to me that the cars are the only things that work efficiently. There is no shortage of speed but this is usually caused by the last minute panic caused by a failure to plan ahead, and so it was on this occasion!

It was Wednesday afternoon before things started moving. I received the contract at 2.18pm on 18 January. By this time client A had given up waiting for the contract and, being assured that the contract was on its way, he was in the air flying to Florida at his own expense. There was a requirement that he sign the contract upon his arrival. The contract was in French, which didn’t help, but by 3.28 I’d translated it, checked it and given my client’s manager a short and largely favourable report on the contract.

Ten minutes later the news came in! Without warning there’s no programme, no test, no sportscars, no contract, nothing – all terminated just a few hours after the contract was sent out. Extraordinary! Another ridiculous story for my autobiography.

Peter Goodman is an experienced corporate and commercial lawyer.
Peter has particular niche, and many years experience, in sports law in which he once worked as a celebrity manager. He continues to advise a number of sporting celebrities and institutions. He has an international reputation in the field of motor sport, is quoted in the press and has spoken at a number of conferences on many different aspects of commercial law.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Peter Goodman on 01727 798061 or by email at peter.goodman@salaw.com.

© SA LAW 2012
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.

For the last 3 years, Bailey has taken the daily trip from St Albans to Great Ormond Street Hospital to receive chemotherapy, which has successfully shrunk his tumor enough that he can receive the next stage of his treatment.

However, Bailey was told on 10 January 2012 that the one life-saving treatment for his condition is only available in Germany at a cost of £100,000, something which the NHS said they are now unable to cover due to a cut in their funding.

Bailey and his family have started their own campaign to raise this money themselves in order to get him the treatment he needs to survive. As you can understand there is a real sense of urgency for him to receive this treatment before his tumor has the chance to start growing again.

Their fundraising website is www.bmycharity.com/BaileySarwaAppeal
The website details the families struggle with their brave son’s fight against Neuroblastoma.

Please donate generously if you can, every penny makes a difference.
If you could spare a few moment of your time, we ask you to spread the word of Bailey Sarwa’s campaign to all your friends, family and colleagues.

Bailey also manages his own Twitter page : @BaileySarwa

Thanks for reading and we hope you will support Bailey.