Rogers and Norton

Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space) – Rules coming into force from 4th May 2021

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:02:00 +0000

4th May is sometimes known as Star Wars Day – May the 4th be with you!

Well 4th May 2021 is a significant date for those who have incurred debts during the last 14 months or so of the Coronavirus pandemic within the UK. Debts have mounted for many and a new scheme is coming into force from 4 May 2021 which will provide some relief for a short period of time for some many millions of debtors.

The aim of the Debt Respite Scheme also to be known as Breathing Space has been introduced to help those who find themselves in debt and it will have the effect of freezing interest payments and suspend any enforcement action for a specified period of time.

There are two types of Breathing Space under the scheme:-

Standard Breathing Space
Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space

Standard Breathing Space is available for individuals and will allow them a period of 60 days breathing space from any action being taken against them including any contact from the creditor or any enforcement action. During this 60 day period any interest charges are also frozen. The standing breathing space can be accessed just once within a 12 month period of time.

Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space differs slightly in that it is not limited to a specific period of time but lasts for the duration of the individual’s period of treatment plus an additional 30 days. There is no limit on this breathing space and it can be used whenever an individual is in a mental health crisis subject of course to specific criteria.

When/how does this apply?

Can only be initiated by:

A Local Authority
A debt advice provider who is authorised by the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) to provide debt counselling

The creditor will be advised via an electronic service and may also receive notification in the post. The time period begins to run from the day after it appears on the register so if notification is given via the postal service then the period of breathing space may already have begun.

The creditor will be notified as well when the breathing space ends.

Action by the Creditor on receipt of Breathing Space Notice?

On receipt the creditor or for that matter claimant has a responsibility to inform any enforcement agency that they have been served with breathing space notice. This then has the effect of suspending any enforcement action against the debtor for the permitted specified period of time. Enforcement agents during this time are stopped from having contact with the debtor, unable to give notice of enforcement, unable to obtain a Warrant or Writ, unable to take control of goods, unable to visit the debtor’s home or business, stopped from serving notice of property possession and unable to take possession of property.

Types of Debts covered by the Scheme:

Credit cards
Store cards
Personal loans
Pay day loans
Overdrafts
Utility bill arrears
Mortgage or rent arrears
Government debt such as council tax
Debt owed by an individual to a business or another individual

Debts not covered:

Any business or commercial debt if the debt relates to the business and not a debtor personally

Excluded Debts:-

secured debts (Mortgages, hire purchase or conditional sale agreements), only those arrears included at the date of an application for breathing space. Any new secured debts after the breathing space starts are not protected. If a secured debts remains as an ongoing liability and the debtor misses a payment then this can mean the debt adviser stops the breathing space
debts incurred from fraud or fraudulent breach of trust
liabilities to pay fines imposed by a Court for an offence
child maintenance or obligations made in family court proceedings
student loans
advance payments of Universal Credit
council tax liabilities not yet fallen due

We are happy to offer further advice and guidance relating to the scheme however, should you require further detailed information or details then please see the Debt Respite Scheme at:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/debt-respite-scheme-breathing-space-guidance/debt-respite-scheme-breathing-space-guidance-for-creditors

All aspects of Debt Recovery work undertaken by the team at Rogers and Norton including:-

Drafting and preparation of letters before action
Issuing Court proceedings (including County Court/High Court)
Obtaining of Judgments
Enforcement action (including Attachment of Earnings Orders, Charging Orders and Third Party Debt Orders)
Insolvency claims
Insolvency claims (including service of statutory demands, bankruptcy and winding up petitions)
Validation Orders

The sectors we have assisted include Construction Industry, National Finance Companies and those dealing with Hire Purchase Agreements, Landlords, Schools, Accountants and Manufacturing Companies.

For all your debt recovery needs contact the team via telephone (01603 666001) or alternatively email web@rogers-norton.co.uk with your initial enquiry.

Success for Rogers and Norton’s HMRC and Border Force Team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:15:00 +0000

Our Team is delighted to have secured the restoration of goods that had been seized by UKBF as our client did not have a CITES Import Permit.

Our specialist team argued that a CITES Import Permit was not required as they fell under our client’s personal derogation as per Article 57.5 of Commission Regulation no 865/2006 paragraphs 3 & 4, and she had a full export licence in place. It was accepted that the goods should not have been seized. Our client commented “wow, I am really pleased and will always recommend you”.

Recently the Team has also successfully recovered very significant damages and compensation for businesses who have had goods unlawfully seized and destroyed by UKBF/HMRC. The Claims were referred to a Referee pursuant to Paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) 1979. The Team is also acting for a number of businesses with Duty and VAT issues with HMRC, especially in relation to goods imported from Hong Kong and China, and are pursuing many cases of all goods and commodities through the First Tier Tax Tribunal and Magistrates Courts.

In addition, the Team is dealing with a dispute with HMRC concerning Farming Sideways Relief. Trade losses may be relieved by deducting the amount of the loss from other types of taxable income. There are restrictions to the use of losses in this way, known as sideways relief, to ensure that relief is only given for genuine commercial losses. The Appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal in December 2021.

Reputation leads to Pre-Easter Boom in Conveyancing

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Thu, 01 Apr 2021 10:34:00 +0000

Stamp Duty holiday and Team’s

1st Apr 2021

Our Property and Conveyancing Team have seen an ever increasing of new instructions for the sale and purchase of properties, and from developers.

Since the Government announced the reopening of the housing market back in mid-May 2020, our Residential Property team at Rogers and Norton have received a dramatic and record increase in instructions. Our large and talented team adapted remarkably well to the lockdown restrictions and with Easter upon us, have worked tirelessly to achieve clients’ objectives. The team have worked long hours and over weekends to overcome the challenges raised by this unprecedented situation, and to help our clients complete their move where possible. All offices at Norwich, Attleborough and London have received a record number of instructions in recent months. We have received positive feedback from our clients who appreciate that there have been many challenges for all of us.

A recent testimonial regarding our Conveyancing Executive Vikki Lambert is an example of the appreciation we received and the service we provide.

Kate Garraway and the legal protection we should all have in place

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:10:00 +0000

Kate Garraway’s heart-breaking story of her husband Derek’s year-long battle with Covid has been made even more complicated by the lack of legal protection she and Derek had in place. Kate was unable to access funds to manage her husband’s care or refinance her mortgage. She didn’t even have the legal right to see his medical notes, owing to data protection.

Research by SFE, shows that 65% of us think our next-of-kin will make medical and care decisions for us if we are no longer able to. In reality, this isn’t the case unless a Health & Welfare Lasting Power of Attorney is in place. Whilst there’s been a rise in the number of enquiries made about Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) during the pandemic, only 22% of people in the UK actually have one.

To avoid this difficult kind of legal situation it’s important to use a specialist lawyer who is experienced in this area of the law, and is trained to support people making these crucial, complex and difficult decisions. According to Which? 22,000 LPAs are rejected every year so it’s essential that you get your legal documents right.

Lasting Powers of Attorney are beneficial in allowing those you trust to be appointed to assist with your property, finances and your health and care decisions. To read more about these documents please see our FAQ section.

Throughout the pandemic the Private Client team in Norwich and Attleborough have continued to assist their clients in putting in place these documents. Instructions can be taken over the telephone, via teams or in person depending on what works best for the client. Each client can have a tailored approach to the way in which we prepare their documents to ensure these are put in place in a timely but safe manner.

Laura Rumsey, Solicitor in the Private Client Team in Norwich and member of SFE (Solicitors for the Elderly), the membership organisation for specialist solicitors who support older and vulnerable people is more than happy to assist and can be contacted on 01603 675645 or lr@rogers-norton.co.uk.

New appointments for Rogers and Norton

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:41:00 +0000

We are delighted to announce the arrival of three new members of our team.

Experienced fee earner starts in Commercial Property

We are pleased to have appointed Paul Oldershaw into our Commercial Property Team in Norwich. Paul has many years’ experience and brings a wealth of knowledge to strengthen our Property Team.

Paul graduated with a degree in Law and Economics from Keele University before completing a post graduate diploma in Legal Practice. He qualified as a Solicitor in 2003 and has specialised in Commercial property since then.

His vast knowledge and experience includes property development, advising business occupiers of office, retail and industrial property, agriculture, property investors, licenced trade and secured lending.

The Legal 500 describes Paul as “patient, helpful with incredible attention to detail”.

If you need any Commercial Property advice then please contact Paul on 01603 675622 or email paul.oldershaw@rogers-norton.co.uk

New Trainee Solicitors

Jack Crosthwaite and Chloe Tooley join as new Trainee Solicitors and will commence their training with Peter Hastings in our Litigation Team and Richard Etheridge in Company & Commercial Team respectively.

Jack graduated from Manchester Metropolitan University with a Law degree in 2019 before completing the Legal Practice Course and Masters also at Manchester.

Jack’s interests include football and fitness including amateur boxing where he represented Attleborough Boxing Club over several years. He has even competed internationally and won a gold medal boxing in Finland!

Chloe graduated from University of Sheffield with a Law degree, which included a year studying in The Netherlands at the University of Groningen. She then completed the Legal Practice Course in Sheffield before taking a role as a Litigation Paralegal dealing with damage claims on behalf of a large UK corporation.

Chloe’s interests include dancing and performing arts achieving high grades through the International Dance Teacher’s Association. Singing and art are also keen interests.

The appointment of an experienced fee earner and two new trainees is very positive news as we continue to grow and strengthen our team.

In a challenging year for everyone, Rogers and Norton has adapted and progressed with projects to increase efficiencies and to ensure excellent client care. This is testament to our staff and their hard work and efforts over the past year.

More success for Rogers and Norton’s Litigation team in defamation claim

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:24:00 +0000

Our Litigation team led by Peter Hastings successfully concluded a claim for Mutual Aid Sheringham (MASh).

It was alleged in May 2020 that our clients were subject to Police Investigation. This allegation was completely untrue and false. We advised our clients that this was a defamatory statement, and advised our clients that they had a claim in defamation. A letter of claim was issued and we engaged with Sheringham Town Council and its solicitors in pursuing the claim. Our clients received an apology and admission that the statement was false and untrue. The Council settled a claim for damages and costs. Our clients are delighted that they can now put this event behind them and continue to serve the local community, working with the Council.

Our clients commented “Throughout the duration of our case Peter Hastings and the team at Rogers and Norton worked tirelessly with incredible diligence and professionalism, promptly and ending with the best outcome. We really felt like they were working for us and we very much appreciated their skills and second to none expertise. I would not hesitate to recommend them to anyone. Peter, you are what they call a legend. “

This Valentine’s Day ensure your loved ones are provided for in your Will

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:59:00 +0000

With Valentine’s Day approaching, thoughts are turning to the loved ones in our lives. Now more than ever is a good time to look ahead and ensure that those you care for will be provided for in later life.

Intestacy

The current pandemic is focusing minds on the future and leading many to review their affairs. The naïve assumption that your loved ones will be provided for simply because they are ‘your loved ones’ is not enough. If you die without leaving a valid Will in place, this is termed intestacy and these rules determine who inherits your assets. This is the law and you have no control over who inherits what.

Partnership and step-children

If you are not married and in a partnership without a Will, it could mean your partner is left with nothing as partners are not included under intestacy rules. This could leave them in a desperate financial situation making an already extremely difficult and emotional time even worse. Remember, too, that step-children are not included under intestacy rules and children you may regard ‘as your own’ may be left out from any inheritance to help secure their future.

Will Consultation and Instructions

During this third lockdown as key workers we are continuing to prepare Wills and maintain our high standards of service. Although no longer offering face-to-face meetings, we can take instructions for your Will over the phone or via video link. A draft will be sent to you by post or email for your approval. Once you are fully happy with the contents of the Will, arrangements can then be made for it to be signed.

We will be pleased to discuss the contents of your Will fully with you. Areas to cover include choice of Executors who will be responsible for carrying out the actions specified in your Will, any particular funeral wishes, guardianship issues, any gifts you wish to leave and who you wish to leave your main estate to.

We can also discuss including Trusts in your Wills such as Life Interest Trusts or Discretionary Trusts which may be beneficial for some.

Signing of Will

The Will can either be posted to you with instructions on how to witness it or we can arrange for the Will to be signed outside one of our offices or outside your home in accordance with Government Guidelines and in a Covid-secure manner if you’re unable to travel to our office and live locally. During the pandemic it has even been made legal to sign Wills via video link; however, caution must be taken with this method of signing and this should only be used as a last resort due to potential disputes and problems in the future.

Contact

Please contact us at our Norwich office on 01603 675645 or at our Attleborough office on 01953 458162 to discuss making a Will or up-dating an existing one.

Remember that making a Will is one of the most important things you can do for your loved ones to ensure peace of mind that they will be provided for financially.

Continued success for HMRC and UK Border Force Litigation team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:11:00 +0000

The Rogers & Norton HMRC and UK Border Force Litigation team were delighted to help with the restoration of goods (Nitrous Oxide) worth more than three hundred thousand Euros for a company importing from Europe to be sold to legitimate users within the catering sector.

The seizure and significant consequences for the company at a challenging time of year to find a solution to the problems they had with HMRC. Unless restored, our client would not have recovered the monies it paid for the goods and its customers would have had claims for breach of contract. The future of our client was at risk. Our specialist team that deal with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) claims, in particular relating to the detention of goods, seizure of goods, understood the need to react quickly to get the goods restored, as the effect on cash flow together with the potential impact on jobs, would be problematic for any company. It is illegal to supply or import for personal use, unless it can be proved to be destined for use in cream chargers for use in the catering industry. It was the UKBF’s case that the Goods imported were liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (‘CEMA’), because they were in breach of a prohibition imposed by s.12 PSA 2016. They were also liable to be forfeited under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (‘PSA’), as they could be consumed by any individual for their psychoactive effects; and the importation was not for an exempted activity. Our client’s evidence proved that the goods were for lawful use, and combined with our compelling arguments on financial hardship, the goods were restored.

We are currently pursuing other claims for damages against HMRC and UKBF, ranging from £50.000 to £6 million. Additionally we are challenging VAT and Duty Assessments from £30,000 to £1million.

We are experienced in Magistrates Court proceedings; First Tier Tax Tribunal; Court of Appeal; European Convention on Human Rights; Administrative Court and Injunctions and can assist with Tax, Coding and Duty and Vat claims and issues.

Lessons to Learn in Construction

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 06 Jan 2021 14:49:00 +0000

Our construction team successfully defended an Adjudication brought against its contractor client for £350,000 by a subcontractor. The case was largely successful due to establishing through expert forensic evidence that a quotation for a fixed fee had not been received by email. In other cases in the past few months, issues ranged from the validity of Pay Less Notices and also payment terms.

This lack of clarity has led to adjudications which could have been avoided.

The Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”) brought in to force a clear procedure for procuring payment and objecting payment should the contract in place between the parties not provide its own mechanism. .

The procedure is as follows:

The subcontractor applies for payment to the main contractor stating how much is due.
7 days later is the ‘Due Date’. This is not the date the money is paid but rather a legal term to start the next stages of the payment process and acts as a reference point in time for other processes. Importantly it is the point in time for which the dates of the Payment Notice, Pay Less Notice and Final Date for Payment are based on.
5 days after the Due Date the main contractor must issue a Payment Notice or a Pay Less Notice stating how much they intend to pay and showing the calculation that forms that valuation.
14 Days after the Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice is the Final Date for Payment. If the parties agree the value due the payment is made or; if they cannot agree the value the parties will refer the dispute to an Adjudicator.

The appointment of adjudicators and provisions for Pay Less Notices are governed by The Scheme for Construction Contracts (“the Scheme”)

On the face of it this process seems fairly simple but yet is the subject of many adjudications.

Two recent adjudications even concerned the same invoice.

The first issue was the subcontractor having a rather shambolic way of invoicing our Client. There were a number of administrative errors with the invoice and it was rescinded and re-issued with revised numbers. Furthermore two invoices were later sent with the same invoice number but for different amounts and it had been sent to our Client by two separate companies.

The subcontractor also maintained that the invoice was physically handed to our Client some months earlier but had no proof. Our client’s evidence was accepted.

The issue here is timing. The issuing of the Invoice is key to setting the timeframes for the rest of the payment procedure following the Act. If it is not known or agreed when the Application for Payment occurs then there is the potential for lengthy arguments to ensue regarding whether a Pay Less Notice has been issued in time or when the Final Date for the Payment is.

Following the Adjudicator finding in our client’s favour the subcontractor referred the issue to another Adjudication, this time submitting that the Payment Application was served on a different date.

In another Adjudication, we argued that a valid Pay Less Notice had been issued within the correct time frame. The consequences of issuing a Pay Less Notice out of time is that the main contractor is liable for whatever figure is on the Application for Payment. We argued that a valid Application for Payment had not been received until a certain date and as such relied on an email served on time as our Pay Less Notice.

If it is ambiguous as to when a payment application has been issued it will naturally be ambiguous as to if a Pay Less Notice has been served on time, it is in that ambiguity that costly and time consuming arguments thrive

The requirements under the Scheme for a Pay Less Notice to be valid are as follows:

It must clearly state what value the main contractor believes is the correct amount due for the work carried out; and
How they have calculated that figure.

There is no further guidance on format, the document does not have to state that it is a Pay Less Notice. It is easy to see how parties can attempt to rely on all sorts of documents as Pay Less Notices. Once again, these can lead to drawn out tedious arguments in adjudications as to what constitutes a valid Pay Less Notice.

Whenever drafting a Pay Less Notice, it is drafted with absolute clarity, clearly setting out the amount the issuing party intend to pay and how that figure was reached. The more detailed the calculation the better. Whilst is not a requirement under the Scheme it is good practice to mark the document as a Pay Less Notice, heading the email as Pay Less Notice and if sent under a cover letter, state clearly that a Pay Less Notice is being issued.

We are regularly advising on Construction Law and drafting the relevant documents such as Pay Less Notices, Referral Notices and other Adjudication documents. With the government’s current drive to ‘Build Back Better’ and focus on these types of projects we can only see more on the horizon. From drafting clear documents to avoid disputes and drafting the necessary documents as a result of disputes, we have knowledge and expertise in all aspects of Construction Law and offer well informed advice to all our construction industry clients.

More success for HMRC and UK Border Force Litigation team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Thu, 31 Dec 2020 11:27:00 +0000

The Rogers & Norton HMRC and UK Border Force Litigation team were delighted to help with the restoration of a valuable bottle of whisky, valued at £50,000.

The goods were seized by UK Border Force at Heathrow Airport. We challenged the legality of the seizure and applied for restoration. On Review, it was accepted that the seizure as disproportionate and that the bottle had been passed through the family and had a sentimental value attached to it. We made a full submission that addressed legality (we considered the seizure was unlawful) and also submitted substantial grounds for restoration. Our client’s testimonial stated “I just wanted to thank you for all your effort in obtaining this result…… I really think that if it wasn’t for me finding you when I read one of your “case studies” online by pure chance, this dreadful episode in my life would have been much worse. I have learnt that dealing with Border Force is like seeking the Holy Grail in one of those Indiana Jones movies with all these traps set to make you fail. The only chance of success is to have an Indiana Jones like you! “

We are regularly contacted by individuals and companies who have had goods seized or detained by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) or the UK Border Agency and we have a high level of success in recovering the items. The team deals with the worldwide importation of goods to the UK, including the huge market from China, Europe, America and Mexico. We work with clients who want goods restored at all major ports of entry, such as Felixstowe and London Gateway, together with Stansted, Gatwick & Heathrow. We are currently dealing with numerous issues relating to Nitrous Oxide, THC, and classification issues on imports from China. We can also advise on PPE issues relating to Duty and VAT.

The ‘Use a Lasting Power of Attorney’ Service

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:59:00 +0000

For Lasting Powers of Attorneys (LPAs) registered in England and Wales on or after 17 July 2020, the government has released an online service called ‘Use a Lasting Power of Attorney’ which allows people or organisations to view a summary of the LPA online.

Once the LPA has been registered with the Office of the Public Guardian the donor and attorneys will be sent an activation key. Using the LPA reference and activation key which they will together be able to create an account on the ‘Use a Lasting Power of Attorney’ service through the Gov.UK website.

Through this account both the donor and attorneys can make an access code which they can provide to organisations such as banks and the DWP to view a summary of the LPA. This will save attorneys needing to take copies of the documents to individual institutions and should streamline the system going forward.

The Office of the Public Guardian plan to open up the service to LPAs registered earlier in 2020 and to some from 2019 in the future.

If you would like to know more about preparing and registering LPAs please contact us on 01603 675645 (Norwich) or 01953 458162 (Attleborough).

The excellent results keep coming for Mark and the Personal Injury team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:28:00 +0000

23rd Dec 2020

Mark Hambling, Director in Rogers & Norton’s Personal Injury Department continues to achieve notable successes in the High Court, having recently agreed a substantial settlement in a fiercely contested liability and quantum claim, following an accident at work suffered by his client in 2015. The claim settled a matter of days before a hybrid High Court trial.

My client suffered serious injuries when working as a self-employed subcontractor for a main contractor who themselves were subcontracting to a further contractor whilst removing an evaporated coil of a large industrial freezer. To complicate matters further the site on which my client was working was managed by a separate company and the scaffolding, which was instrumental in my client’s injuries was installed by a separate scaffolding contractor. My clients injuries were such that in addition to the current pain, it was very likely his condition would deteriorate effect his long term earnings position.

As a result of the accident in November 2015 my client was thrown from a working platform whilst attached by a Lanyard to scaffolding which it was alleged by the scaffolders was never intended to provide a fixing point for fall protection, but which collapsed during the construction work. Between December 2015 and November 2018 the insurers for the contractor, subcontractor, site coordinator and scaffolders continued to challenge my client’s claim, continued to blame each other and made no offers in settlement whatsoever. Each Defendant denied liability but failed to appreciate the extent to which my client was the innocent party and on the balance probabilities likely to recover damages, as the only definite conclusion was that the failing identified in the evidence were not caused by my client. The case did not settle and given the strength of the evidence I had been able to put together, court proceedings were issued in the High Court. Despite these proceedings discussions did not take place between the Defendants and instead each Defendant continued to blame each other and fully defend the clients significant claim for damages. The case involved 5 parties and a substantial volume of documents as to the arrangements concerning the site management, the contractual arrangements between the contractors and subcontractors and the various risks assessments and method statements relating to the conduct of the task in the contract, during which my client sustained very significant injuries upon the scaffolding collapsing causing my client to be pulled from the working platform.

The case involved witness evidence from 13 witnesses and the Court proceedings were necessarily brought against all four Defendants, all of whom along with my client the Claimant served substantial documentary evidence.

The issue of proceedings and disclosure exercise within the proceedings did not bring the case to a conclusion, despite my efforts to continually indicate to each Defendant the good prospects of my client succeeding against at least one of the four Defendants and therefore recovering my clients costs of being forced to pursue all four Defendants.

The case was listed for trial for 4 days starting on the 9th November 2020 and despite efforts by the Defendants to apply to adjourn the trial as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, I was able to persuade the Judge that the case should continue and could be conducted safely in a hybrid manner, with witnesses giving evidence both in Court whilst socially distant and remotely by way of the Court’s video platform, a procedure regularly adopted over the last 7 months. Indeed, given the case was due to proceed in London and many witnesses for both sides of the dispute living in Norwich, our Willow Lane office was due to be set up as a remote video location for giving evidence via the court’s cloud video platform with appropriate PPE, sanitizer and full social distancing arrangements in place to allow the witnesses attendance to be timetabled to be given safely.

Shortly before the trial was due to start, the Defendants finally put forward a joint offer which after some negotiation led to my client recovering a substantial six-figure award in damages to compensate for the pain suffered and the likely long term consequences of his injuries. Additionally my client’s costs of pursuing all four Defendants will be paid by those Defendants against whom he has been successful and my client has no liability for any costs in respect of those Defendants who did not contribute towards the final settlement. In those circumstance an excellent outcome in respect of the claim but also the costs.

This was a case where the Defendants should have grasped the issues as regards the likelihood of my client winning his claim at a much earlier stage. I made every effort to draw to each Defendant’s attention the various deficiencies in their case and the level of my client’s damages and invited them to take a proportionate and cost-effective approach to the litigation to save costs. It was not until I was able to persuade the Court, despite objections from the Defendants, that the case should proceed as a hybrid trial, that the Defendants saw the strength of my client’s case. As a result of further negotiation and having maintained a strong stance on both liability and quantum throughout the litigation a very favourable settlement plus costs was negotiated for my client.

It was helpful and important to the case that the court were prepared to allow a hybrid trial with evidence being given in court and remotely. As a result of putting forward alternatives which allowed a safe trial with remote witnesses and social distancing in court to take place, the Defendants finally saw the prospects of my client’s case and entered in to sensible negotiations to achieve a resolution. It is however relevant that costs could have been significantly been saved if the Defendants had reacted to the inevitable outcome earlier, rather than being almost forced to the settlement by the presentation of the evidence and the trial options at the point the trial was listed.

I am delighted to obtain an excellent outcome for my client and grateful for the appreciation provided to my client at the end of the case. As he said to me, “you were confident the case would succeed, backed me all the way to trial, allowed me to understand and be confident in your advice and your tactics were spot on. I am so thankful for you and your teams hard work to obtain this excellent outcome”

Mark Hambling is a Director of the company’s Personal Injury Department, a Senior Litigator with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a specialist at handling high value and complicated personal injury claims. Mark will consider cases on a No Win No Fee Agreement and is happy to offer an initial discussion as regards any claim without obligation and cost. Mark can be contacted on mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk and by telephone on 01603 666001.

Covid-19 Update from the Private Client Team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:51:00 +0000

In the Private Client team at Rogers & Norton we have adapted our working practices to ensure that you can continue to access our services throughout 2020 and will continue to do so as the situation with Covid develops.

We are contactable using our normal telephone numbers and email addresses supplied via our website and our main switchboard is continually manned. We will be happy to assist you with every private client need. We are pleased to note that throughout 2020 and both “lockdown” periods we have been able to offer our Wills and Last Power of Attorney services with our experienced staff. We note that anxiety levels are high with our clients and are more than happy to discuss individual needs and requirements with you to ensure that the delivery of our services are in the safest possible manner.

Where possible we are continuing to arrange telephone or video calls which have proven to be highly efficient as a source of taking instructions and then where possible will always see clients in a Covid-secure manner for the signing of documents.

We understand that telephone or video calls may not always be suitable in certain circumstances. We pride ourselves in adapting to each individual client and are able to use a dedicated meeting room which is isolated from the rest of the practice and is thoroughly sanitised after each use and ready for our clients.

Alternatively for signing Wills or Lasting Powers of Attorney we are also happy to attend you at your property without entering your property and whilst maintaining a safe distance to allow you to execute your Wills or Lasting Powers of Attorney.

We have been able to continue to advise clients in hospital and in care homes even with restricted access by working with the establishment to ensure all parties remain safe. We will continue to assist all our clients where possible and whilst maintaining the safety of both the client, their family and our staff.

Please contact us at our Norwich office on 01603 675645 or our Attleborough office on 01953 458162 where we can discuss any of yours or your family’s requirements.

Rogers & Norton would like to thank you for your support and understanding during this time.

Rogers and Norton Christmas donations

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Fri, 18 Dec 2020 11:44:00 +0000

As we cannot have a traditional office Christmas party this year we have decided that we will donate the cost of this and split between two local charities that provide essential support and care for the local community. All charities have had a very difficult year with the lack of events or support and we hope that by donating our office Christmas party funds, it will provide a little help.

We are donating to St Martins Housing Trust. By donating to this charity we are directly helping people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. This local charity is hugely important all year round for people needing support but we wanted to donate at Christmas to help provide this service at such a difficult time of year for so many. To find out more or to donate please visit their website here Home – St Martins (stmartinshousing.org.uk)

We are also donating to NANSA (formerly Norfolk and Norwich Scope Association) who provide specialist provision for people of all ages living with disabilities and complex behavioural, sensory or developmental needs. This money will, in particular, go towards speech coaching and training to facilitate communication for children with disabilities and special educational needs. To find out more or to donate please visit their website here www.nansa.org.uk

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Further success for Mark Hambling and the Personal Injury team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:06:00 +0000

Mark Hambling, Director in the Personal Injury Department has not let the difficulties of lockdown and the 2020 Covid pandemic prevent him from achieving excellent results for his clients. He has recently concluded a run of High Court case of which the success below was the second in sequence of excellent results.

I was instructed to act for a mother and two children who sustained very significant injuries in a road traffic accident. The case was complicated by the fact that the mother and her two children were passengers in a vehicle being driven by the husband and father, when it was involved in a head-on collision before hitting a third car, causing all occupants to sustain serious injuries, and in the case of the mother significant life changing consequences.

The case was complicated by the insurers of the two vehicles colliding head on not being accepting liability or in the case of my clients claims, agreeing to deal with the claims and share the liability between them. As such, in the absence of independent witnesses to the actual impact the matter was ultimately to be determined on the basis of drivers evidence and more likely than not expensive forensic evidence to be obtained by both insurers. What was clear was that my clients were the innocent passengers in the accident, could not in any way be responsible for the accident and therefore they would recover against one or a combination of both of the insurers of the two vehicles colliding head on. Notwithstanding what was always the likely outcome I had to work hard in the initial stages of the case to convince each insurer to cooperate under the rehabilitation protocol and to fund early treatment in respect of the injuries sustained, to achieve the best possible outcome from the significant injuries and save costs. What I had hoped was an obvious benefit to either insurer of early treatment to reduce the clients suffering and save costs, was complicated by the feuding insurers who were focussed on their liability position and could not see the benefit of early treatment, sharing the costs and apportioning those costs between them once the issue of liability between the insurers was resolved. As a result it was inevitable given the issues, the insurers stance and the value of the case that High Court proceedings were required in respect of all claims, to secure interim payments and to fund much needed treatment and assistance.

My advice to my clients was to adopt a robust line on the value of the claim and to stand by the strong evidence on the injuries and financial losses obtained, despite the insurers trying their best to challenge the evidence, even by serving video surveillance which did no more than show the most seriously injured client doing her best to function and doing no more than the evidence accepted the client could do. Indeed this evidence ultimately supported the Claimants oral evidence on the effects of the injuries. Following settlement meetings and adopting a robust line in the face of insufficient offers that were made, by continuing to progress the case towards a final hearing, one insurer accepted liability and suitable settlement offers agreed before a trial on the liability issues was due to start.

The claim settled at very substantial figures in respect of all three Claimants shortly before the liability trial and has provided each Claimant with sums to reflect their injuries and secure their future treatment and earnings needs.

I was delighted to be able to resolve this case at settlement sums which will ensure each Claimant has received full compensation, and in the case of the most seriously injured, places them in a position to continue to fund their treatment and be compensated in respect of loss of income for the rest of their career. The case was progressed through lockdown and required many of the normal procedures to be varied to ensure the case continued and was not delayed by the Covid pandemic. For example, medical evidence was obtained by video links, meeting with barristers by MS Teams and court case management hearings undertaken remotely. The last 8 to 9 months has seen lawyers have to adapt and it is to the credit of the profession that we have all found ways to keep cases progressing and ensure we continue to achieve notable successes for such deserving clients, ensuring their case is not prejudiced by the pandemic..

In this case, by ensuring full evaluation of the injuries at an early stage a case plan could be put in place to obtain a full suite of medical evidence,making it difficult for the Defendants to cloud the evidence on both the cause of the injuries and the value of the claim. By obtaining the appropriate medical evidence a strong Part 36 offer to settle was made, allowing the negotiations to provide the Claimants with full compensation.

Following the settlement, my client sent me the most delightful thank you indicating “We just wanted to say a huge thank you for all your hard work on our cases and the excellent end result you achieved for us”

Video Will Signings

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:25:00 +0000

Video Will Signings

30th Nov 2020

The legislation in relation to Wills dates back to the 1800’s and therefore with Covid the normal process of signing Wills urgently had to be reviewed. The law requires a Will to be signed in the presence of two independent adult witnesses who are present at the signing. This has of course proven difficult this year with social distancing, lockdowns and shielding.

On 7 September 2020 the government relaxed the requirement for a testator to sign their Will in the “physical presence” of two independent adult witnesses meaning a Will can executed virtually.

The government has published guidance on the new virtual execution of Wills which includes the following:

The Will will not be valid until it has been signed by the testator and both witnesses;
A live video link must be used, it cannot be a pre-recorded video;
Both the testator and witnesses should confirm that they can see and understand what is happening;
The witnesses must be able to clearly see, hear and identify the testator and that the document being signed is a Will;
The witnesses must have clear vision of the testator signing;
After the testator has signed, the Will should then be given to the two witnesses for them to sign via another live video link with the testator and this should ideally take place within 24 hours of the testator signing the Will;
The testator must also have clear vision and audio of the witnesses signing the Will;
Each video link should ideally be recorded and this saved in a secure location;
Electronic signatures are not allowed, it must be signed in pen; and
Counterparts are not permitted, the testator and witnesses should all sign the same original Will.

This change in law is to be unusually backdated to 31st January 2020, meaning that any Will virtually witnessed from that date will be a legally valid Will. This relaxation is only intended as a temporary measure and has a provisional end date of 31st January 2022.

The guidance does state that virtual execution of Wills should be an absolute last resort and that the traditional method should be used where it is possible and safe to do so.

There is a risk that as the Will will not be valid until it has been signed by the testator and the witnesses, that if a testator were to die before both witnesses were able to sign the Will, it would not be valid and the testator could die intestate if they do not have an existing Will or with a previous Will that no longer reflects their wishes.

Virtual execution of Wills should be a last resort and only after careful professional advice has been taken. We have found ways to adapt to taking Will instructions and to attend Will signings so we believe in the large majority of cases virtual execution of Wills should not be necessary.

However we are more than happy to discuss your individual requirements and circumstances to ensure that your Wills are prepared and executed in a sensible timeframe and in a Covid-secure method.

Should you wish to discuss your Wills further with us then please get in contact with our Norwich office on 01603 675645 or our Attleborough office on 01953 458162.

Money raised for Dementia UK

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:21:00 +0000

Rogers & Norton are pleased to have finally been able to attend a cheque presentation to Dementia UK between lockdowns and whilst adhering to restrictions.

In 2019 our chosen charity was Dementia UK and in particular, Admiral Nurses in Norfolk. We carried out bake sales, dress down days and had our annual foot-golf charity day to help raise crucial funds for such a worthy cause. Rogers and Norton raised over £7,000 and, together with money raised by the Admiral Walk team, a cheque for £17,000 was presented to Dementia UK. This was overseen by the dementia ambassador pony Jack Brock!

Admiral Nurses provide specialist support to families affected by dementia. They work alongside people with dementia and their families: giving them one-to-one support, expert guidance and practical solutions. The expertise and experience an Admiral Nurse brings is a lifeline – it helps families to live more positively with dementia in the present and to face the challenges of tomorrow with more confidence and less fear.

We are incredibly proud to continue our support for Dementia UK and help fund Admiral Nurses in the local community. Rogers and Norton is a Dementia Friendly company and a member of Dementia Action Alliance.

Major Success for Rogers and Norton Specialist Personal Injury Team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:03:00 +0000

Mark Hambling, Director in the Rogers & Norton Personal Injury Department has successfully concluded a substantial claim for damages for client following a serious accident at work.

The claim was complicated as our client was a self-employed individual who had been contracted to undertake work at the premises of a customer who he was subcontracting to. This was not therefore a normal employer liability claim but as a result of the Personal Injury team’s experience and detailed knowledge of both the law in negligence and the extent to which this is aided and informed by statutory obligations, we have been able to recover substantial damages for our client against the company which the client had been contracted to undertake the work for.

In 2016, our client had been requested to attend at the premises of a contractor to undertake work which was required to be done at about 4 to 5 metres from ground level. On previous occasions the contractor had provided a scaffold tower for similar work, but on this occasion did not do so, claiming that the tower was not available as it was being used elsewhere on site. As an alternative an inappropriate ladder was provided. Unfortunately the ladder was not suitable for the job and whilst the work was being undertaken, the ladder slipped and our client fell to the floor sustaining a head injury and significant orthopaedic injuries. The consequences of these injuries caused him to suffer significant loss of earning and a long term compromise on his ability to continue to work in his chosen field of employment

The specialist team, headed by Mark, were able to advise our client at an early stage that he had a claim with good prospects of success but equally address the issue that, an experienced contractor who probably knew with hindsight that using a ladder was inappropriate, the case was likely to succeed with some finding to reflect the fact that to a degree our client was the author of his own misfortune. This is known as contributory negligence.

As a result of our experience and knowledge we were able to analyse the issues of the case early upon instruction and having been able to put together a detailed and thorough letter of claim, present an early and favourable Part 36 offer to settle the liability issue with a small finding of contributory negligence. The Part 36 offer created significant cost risks and as a result of submitting the letter of claim and the Part 36 offer in close proximity, the insurers agreed the liability issue leaving the value of the claim then to be resolved.

Having obtained the appropriate evidence from Orthopaedic, Neurological and Dental experts, we documented the significant claim for damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and could also establish a substantial claim for past and future loss of earning to age 70, our clients intended retirement age and future treatment costs.

A very substantial six-figure award in damages was recovered plus the client’s costs and was agreed shortly before the Court proceedings needed to be commenced.

Commenting on the case, Mark Hambling, Director in the company’s Personal Injury Department indicated as follows:

I remember the client coming to see me some time after the injuries had been sustained as his initial thoughts had been that it may be difficult to pursue his claim as he was a self-employed subcontractor. I was able to swiftly explain to him how the law will assist him, in particular having regard to the previous conduct of the contractor, the fact that my client was working at height and the element of control the contractor had over the work being undertaken. It was clear at an early stage from my investigation that given my client’s experience and the facts of the case, that a finding of contributory negligence was likely and an early Part 36 offer was able to swiftly deal with that issue, protecting my client’s position as regards to costs. This was a case where the insurers for the Defendant were extremely sensible and engaged in sensible settlement negotiations, saving the costs of issuing proceedings whilst also ensuring that my client recovered full compensation, save for the small percentage deduction to reflect contributory negligence.

My client was delighted with the outcome and told me shortly after settlement that I provided an excellent and professional service achieving an award far in excess of his expectations when he first consulted Rogers & Norton. I was delighted to note that he would not hesitate instructing my colleagues or I in the future should he ever require further legal advice or assistance.

Recovering your debts

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:24:00 +0000

In the current climate as a result of the continuing public health emergency you may be having difficulty recovering money owed to you for the completion of a job. This can very often have a huge impact on a company’s cash flow and ability to continue to trade successfully.

In the event that you are unable to agree a solution with the debtor, it can be helpful to discuss the problem with a solicitor who has expertise in debt recovery.

Often it is as simple as writing a letter to the person who owes you money – this will tell them that legal action may be taken if they don’t pay the outstanding debt. The impact of receiving a letter from a Solicitor can often produce the quick results people desire, many debts are paid on receipt with no further enforcement action required.

Talking with a solicitor can also help define your case in legal terms and help identify further action that may be available to you in the event of non-payment of the outstanding debt.

A letter before action (LBA) is a formal letter that requests the payment of a debt to you or your business and warns of the imminent issue of a court claim.

A LBA sets out what is owed to you or your business from a debtor and provides a set time period, usually 7 days, in which to pay – it is an essential requirement of the debt recovery process.

Before issuing any legal proceedings, a letter before action must be sent or costs may be forfeited.

If your debtor is a sole trader (or individual), from 1 October 2017 you must adhere to the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims and are no longer able to send a standard Letter Before Action.

The changes revolve around increasing the amount of information shared between parties, to a sufficient enough level that the parties can understand each other’s position and come to an agreement without the need for court involvement.

Whilst many Solicitors will make a charge for a letter before action there are many occasions where we will normally produce the initial letter free of charge.

Our highly experienced and knowledgeable debt recovery team understand the need to respond quickly and decisively to secure payment of outstanding debt. The ability to offer a fast turn-around is vital to help clients secure payment of monies owing to them.

We understand that unpaid invoices can affect your business cash flow. Delayed payments can create issues with uncertainty over when, or if, you will get paid. Our debt recovery services are trusted by companies both large and small to recover their business debts.

We can advise on terms and conditions and interest claims, together with the enforcement action. Fees are agreed at the outset and our service is tailored to each client’s individual or business needs.

In a recent claim, a Mrs G provided us with instructions on morning of 17 June to pursue monies due and owing to her, an e-mail together with letter before action was sent on the same day as receipt of instructions and by close of business on 19 June, monies to settle the outstanding debt had been received and the claim was then concluded. The client was extremely grateful for the very fast turnaround and to be in receipt of funds so quickly.

Notice periods for seeking possession of most residential tenancies in England increased to six months

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Fri, 04 Sep 2020 11:41:00 +0000

Following on from our recent update in relation to the extension of the stay on possession proceedings to 20th September 2020, the Coronavirus Act 2020 has, as anticipated, now been amended so as to extend the amount of notice of possession proceedings to be given to residential tenants in most cases.

Background

When the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”) came into force on 26 March 2020, notice periods in relation to possession proceedings for certain residential tenancies were extended, in most cases to three months. This amendment applied to any notices being served during the “Relevant Period”, which began on 26 March 2020 and was due to end on 30 September 2020.

The 2020 Act also contained provision for the Secretary of State (or, in the case of Wales, the Welsh Ministers) to extend the Relevant Period and to alter the three month notice period by way of further regulations.

The provisions of the 2020 Act relating to residential tenancies are contained in Schedule 29.

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick, indicated that the notice periods were going to be extended in relation to England (having already been extended in relation to Wales) when he announced the recent extension to the stay in proceedings.

The New Regulations

The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Residential Tenancies: Protection from Eviction) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/914) (“the Regulations”) came into force on 29th August 2020.

The Regulations apply in England only and make amendments to the 2020 Act. In particular, they:

Extend the end of the Relevant Period until 31 March 2021 (regulation 1).
Disapply certain parts of Schedule 29 to the 2020 Act so that where a landlord relies on particular grounds involving anti-social behaviour, the notice requirements have reverted to those in force before the 2020 Act was enacted (regulation 2).
Increase the required notice periods for most residential possession notices, from three to six months, subject to several important exceptions (regulation 3).

Where the tenancy is a Rent Act 1977-protected or statutory tenancy, a secure, assured or assured shorthold tenancy (AST), the exceptions mean that the following notice periods apply:

Four weeks, where at least six months’ rent is unpaid at the time the notice is served.
Three months, where the grounds for eviction relate to the tenant’s immigration status or the tenancy is an assured tenancy or AST and possession is sought following the death of the former tenant.
The notice period that applied before Schedule 29 to the 2020 Act came into force, where the grounds for eviction relate to anti-social behaviour, domestic violence or acquiring the tenancy as a result of a fraud.

For introductory and demoted tenancies, the exceptions set out a required notice period of four weeks in a case where the landlord seeks possession for reasons related to anti-social behaviour or domestic violence.

Amendments have been made to the prescribed form of notice under section 8 and section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (“HA 1988”) and, for secure tenancies, to the notice of intention to seek possession. It is therefore important to ensure that you use the correct form of notice as failure to do so could result in the notice being deemed invalid.

For notices seeking possession under section 21 of the HA 1988, the period in which possession proceedings must be commenced under section 21(4D) has been extended from six to ten months from the date on which the notice was given.

Landlords who have already served a notice on their tenants before the Regulations came into force on 29th August 2020 will be relieved to hear that the amendments to the 2020 Act are not retrospective and so do not apply in relation to notices served before that date.

If you are a landlord or a tenant and would like further advice in relation to your legal rights please contact Elizabeth Gibson on 01603 675641 or at eg@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Further Extension to the Possession Stay

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:02:00 +0000

In continuance of the government’s unprecedented package of measures to help ameliorate the economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, on 21st August 2020 the government announced that the possession stay, previously due to come to an end on 23rd August 2020, was to be extended to 20 September 2020.

The extension to stay has been effected by way of a further amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“the Rules”), which govern how civil cases in England and Wales (including possession claims) are dealt with by the Courts and the parties. The effect of the amendment is that all possession proceedings and all enforcement proceedings by way of writ or warrant of possession are stayed until 20th September 2020.

When a claim is stayed, this means that the Court cannot take any action in relation to it. For example, there will be no hearings and no orders, including possession orders, will be made (subject to a few exceptions set out in the Rules). Similarly, the stay on writs or warrants of possession means that where a possession order has already been made and has expired, bailiffs are unable to attend at properties to evict the tenants.

Concern has been expressed amongst landlords and members of the legal profession as to the resulting backlog of cases at County Courts across the country once the stay is lifted. In relation to this, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has stated that:

“When courts do resume eviction hearings they will carefully prioritise the most egregious cases, ensuring landlords are able to progress the most serious cases, such as those involving anti-social behaviour and other crimes, as well as where landlords have not received rent for over a year and would otherwise face unmanageable debts.”

It is not at this stage clear whether any further legislation or amendment to the Rules shall be introduced to effect this policy.

Interestingly, Robert Jenrick also announced, alongside the extension, that:

“The government also intends to give tenants greater protection from eviction over the winter by requiring landlords to provide tenants with 6 months’ notice in all bar those cases raising other serious issues such as those involving anti-social behaviour and domestic abuse perpetrators, until at least the end of March.”

It is not clear how or when this further measure will be introduced. The Coronavirus Act 2020, which came into force on 25th March 2020, has already had the effect of extending the notice period from 2 months to 3 months for Section 21 Notices and to 3 months (in most cases) for Section 8 Notices.

It remains to be seen what will happen to notices served since 25 March 2020 which provided 3 months’ notice as required by the amendments effected the Coronavirus Act 2020, whether the 6-month time limit for issuing proceedings from the date of serving a Section 21 Notices will be lifted or amended, and what grounds in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 will be subject to the new notice period.

The past 5 months have shown that anything can change at very short notice, so landlords and tenants should stay alert to any future announcements.

The above changes do not mean that tenants are no longer required to pay rent, so if you are a tenant you should continue to pay the rent in accordance with your tenancy agreement. If you are unable to do so you should seek independent legal and/or financial advice and try to agree a payment plan with your landlord to minimise the arrears that build up and address those arrears once you are in a better financial position.

Similarly, if you are a landlord you should maintain contact with your tenant and if the rent is in arrears discuss with the tenant the cause of those arrears and how they might be addressed. It is also important to note that the extension of the stay does not prevent you from serving a Section 8 or 21 Notice or issuing proceedings. It just means that if you issue proceedings they will be stayed automatically. It also does not affect the validity of any possession order that has already been made; you will just need to wait until after the stay is lifted before you are able to have the tenants evicted.

If you are a landlord or a tenant and would like further advice please contact Elizabeth Gibson at eg@rogers-norton.co.uk or on 01603 675641.

Litigation Team Secures Dismissal of a Winding-Up Petition

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:40:00 +0000

The litigation team has recently secured the dismissal of a winding-up petition for almost £180,000 that had been issued against a company.

Under s. 122 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”), a company may be wound up by the Court if, amongst other reasons, it is unable to pay its debts. s. 123 of the Act defines what is meant by “unable to pay its debts” and this definition includes where a company has been served with a Statutory Demand “requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for 3 weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor”. This is what had happened in this case.

Under s. 125 of the Act, “on hearing a winding-up petition the court may dismiss it, or adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally, or make an interim order, or any other order that it thinks fit”.

The debt claimed was disputed on substantial grounds and this dispute is currently ongoing. The company’s position was therefore that it was not appropriate to make a winding-up order at this stage as it was able to pay its debts; the debt had simply not been paid because the company disputed that it was due.

It was of particular importance in this case that the petition was dismissed rather than the case being adjourned, because the company was in the process of securing finance for a development project. The lender would not release the funds whilst there was an outstanding petition registered against the company and the matter needed to be dealt with urgently as there was a very limited time for which the lender was willing to keep the funds available for the company.

After negotiations with the creditor we were able to persuade them to agree to the dismissal of the petition at this stage. However, the lender required evidence that the petition had actually been dismissed by an order of the Court, their reasoning being that even if the parties had signed a consent order, the Court could for whatever reason decline to endorse it.

We made an application to the County Court dealing with the petition for the consent order that had been agreed to be approved. However, in light of the current pandemic Courts are working at limited capacity and prioritising cases that they consider to be urgent. The Court was therefore unable to confirm whether they would be in a position to seal the order before the lender’s deadline. We were therefore required to make an urgent application to the High Court for the case to be transferred up to that Court and for an order to be made in the terms that had been agreed. Counsel was instructed to proceed with this on a Friday afternoon, the following Monday we were advised that the order had been approved by an Insolvency and Companies Court Judge and we had the sealed order the following day. This enabled the company to proceed with its funding.

We are able to advise on insolvency procedures for both companies and individuals, whether you are a creditor looking to recover monies owed to you or a debtor who is being pursued. Please contact Peter Hastings or myself (Elizabeth Gibson) in the Dispute Resolution team at Rogers & Norton for further information.

Litigation Team Success for Irish Company against UK Border Force

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:05:00 +0000

The Rogers & Norton HMRC and UK Border Force Litigation team were delighted to help with the restoration of goods worth more than one hundred thousand pounds for a company exporting goods via the UK to Eastern Europe.

The items were seized shortly after Christmas and created significant consequences for the company at a challenging time of year to find a solution to the problems they had with HMRC. The goods were destined for companies in Eastern Europe and unless restored, meant that our client would be in breach of contract should it not fulfil the order, with a risk to the company’s future We secured the restoration on making a detailed submission at Review.

Our specialist team that deal with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) claims, in particular relating to the detention of goods, seizure of goods, understood the need to react quickly to get the goods restored, as the effect on cash flow together with the potential impact on jobs, would be problematic for any company.

We are currently pursuing a claim for damages for the unlawful seizure of goods, with the damages exceeding £1,000,000 and also challenging numerous seizures, assessments of Duty and VAT and requests for security payments. We have a wide experience in dealing with detentions, stoppages and the seizure of goods by UK Border Force.

The team deals with the worldwide importation of goods to the UK, including the huge market from China, Europe, America and Mexico. We work with clients who want goods restored at all major ports of entry, such as Felixstowe and London Gateway, together with Stansted, Gatwick & Heathrow.

Busy construction team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:27:00 +0000

It’s been a busy few months for the construction team despite Lockdown.

We have yet another example of how vitally important the use of a Pay Less notice is in the building industry, having recovered a substantial sum of money for a contractor and also succeeding for a sub-contractor as the main contractor had failed to issue a valid Pay Less Notice pursuant to Section 111 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 due to one not being served.

We are currently acting on the recovering of a final contract on a 4 year project with a build cost of £12,500,000 and on a dispute over a defective roof for a shopping complex. In addition, we are dealing with various claims for breaches of contract in relation to design and naturally advising on delays arising from Covid 19 and Force Majeure and Frustration issues.

Our skilled and experienced Litigation team have a wide depth of knowledge relating to the construction industry – if you are experiencing issues with enforcing a contract or any construction and building claims, you can contact us on 01603 675639 or at ph@rogers-norton.co.uk.

We are also experience in drafting and advising on construction contracts including JCT contracts, and also Adjudication, Arbitration, Mediation and Expert Determination.

Success for Rogers and Norton’s Contentious Probate Team

noreply@blogger.com (Rogers and Norton Solicitors) — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:05:00 +0000

22nd Jun 2020

It is sad that a dispute can arise following the death of a loved one. We are handling increasing levels of litigation in this area.

A recent case saw our clients, brothers of the deceased, subjected to a claim for the entire estate by a party who alleged that she was a long term partner and that she and the deceased planned to marry. It was her case that she was left without reasonable financial provision from what was a sizeable estate.

On this occasion the contentious probate team were able to defeat the claim under The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Inheritance Act“), and having scrutinised the evidence including bank records and social media postings.

Rogers & Norton’s contentious probate team have the knowledge and expertise to handle disputes of all levels and size. They combine the skills and talents of the private client team with the experience of the litigation team, to ensure the client achieves the best expert advice and outcome.