d&dls 61

D&DLS BulletinDerby & District Law Society

www.derbylaw.net April 2016

Also in this issue: Motoring Law • Annual Dinner - p14 • Property • In Memoriam

Gold Patrons of the Society: Severn Trent Searches

Winners Natalie Yeung (C) & Lisa Lyden-Cowan (R) receive their certificates from Scott Atkins (L)see report on p 18

2016Skills Triathlon

www.derbylaw.net 3

Contents

D&DLS BulletinDerby & District Law Society April 2016

EditorialAs President Di says in her column on p5, her year is passing all too quickly and it will soon be time for the AGM, on May 9th at Derbyshire Cricket Club – please make a note in your diary to attend, as the Society belongs to ALL its members and not just the Committee. Following the positive Open Meeting held in February a small working group has been formed to explore and hopefully take forward some of the suggestions made as to how the Society can adapt its role to the new legal landscape and the changing needs of the local profession; all being well incoming President Andy Cash may have some proposals to put forward, and it would be good if he did so to a decent audience and not to an empty room.

Talking of the AGM, Hon. Treasurer Sue Woodall has indicated a wish to stand down, but despite an appeal in the last Bulletin no-one has come forward as her potential replacement – if you would like to get involved in the work of the Society as Treasurer I am sure Sue would be pleased to explain what is involved (you don’t need to be an accountant, just reasonably well-organised and competent with numbers!) – her contact details can be found on p4. Please get in touch.

Just before the AGM we have the Annual Dinner on Friday April 29th, bookings for which are coming in slowly but steadily.

As I write this on March 24 we are at 183 and I am confident that we will overtake last year’s total of 190 – the greater the attendance the better the atmosphere and the more enjoyable the occasion, so if you or your firm has not yet booked places (there is no obligation to take a full table of 10 providing you are happy to make up a composite table) do so using the booking form in this issue. Please note that as I have to confirm numbers and pay for all meals one week prior to the event the deadline for paid-for bookings is Friday April 22nd. Full details can be found on p14.

Elsewhere, following his uncharacteristically brief report in the last issue, Council Member Michael Williams lets us know on p8 at greater length what he feels is wrong with Chancery Lane – by the time you read this he will have attended his next Council meeting and tried ‘to make his views known’, so we await his next report with interest!

The latest in Andy Cash’s helpful series of articles on aspects of motoring law can be found on p10, and Martin Salt draws attention to swingeing proposed increases in the fees for the grant of probate on p19 – this article was emailed to all members on March 23rd to allow all those with concerns about what amounts to another ‘stealth tax’ (not to mention ‘wealth tax’) to express them before the consultation deadline of April 1st to do

so; one of the roles of a local law society identified in February was keeping the profession informed of developments and encouraging and facilitating responses to either/both Chancery Lane and/or relevant authorities on issues which involve and concern them, and I hope that you agree that the members’ bulk email facility is a good example of that in action.

Finally, congratulations to the winners of this year’s Legal Skills Triathlon (see cover and pp16-17) – we had a record entry from the profession this year, so thanks on behalf of organiser Sue Jennings to those firms who entered their junior staff, and we look forward to a similar entry next year. On the 10th anniversary of the event we should also place on record our thanks to John Calladine, whose original idea it was – there are many within the local profession (including 2 current Committee members) who have reason to be grateful for the experience and exposure they gained by taking part.

As ever, I would welcome articles, opinion pieces or just general news which would be of interest to the wider local profession, so if you have anything you would like to get off your chest, or pass on to colleagues, please let me have it by email at [email protected].

Peter BallAdministrator

Published by: EAST PARK COMMUNICATIONS Ltd.Maritime House, wBalls Road, Birkenhead, WirralCH43 5RETel: 0151 651 2776

[email protected]

AdvertisingSimon Castell

Managing EditorPeter Ball

DesignEast Park Studio

AccountsManoj Ahmed

PublishedApril 2016

© East Park Communications Ltd.

Legal Notice© East Park Communications Ltd.None of the editorial or photographs may be reproduced without prior written permission from the publishers. East Park Communications Ltd would like to point out that all editorial comment and articles are the responsibility of the originators and may or may not reflect the opinions of East Park Communications Ltd. Correct at time of going to press.

3 - Contents

3 - Editorial

4 - List of Officers

5 - President’s Page

6 - Nottingham Legal Walk

7 - Property

7 - Recruitment

8 - Council Member’s Report

10 - Motoring Law

11 - In Memoriam

12 - CPD Programme 2016

13 - Bookingn Form

14 - Annual Dinner 2016

16 - Skills Triathlon 2016

18 - Probate

20 - Home for Good

21 - Costs Budgeting

22 - Behaviour Change

24 - Philanthropy Advice -

Helping your clients

26 - CON29DW Drainage &

Water enquiry

28 - Two More Reasons

to Mediate

4 www.derbylaw.net

Officers

President*Diana CopestakeFreeth Cartwright LLPTel: 0845 [email protected]

Vice President*Andy CashCartwrigt KIng, Derby Tel: 01332 346111 e-mail andy.cash@ cartwrightking.co.uk

Deputy Vice-President* Simon StevensEddowes Waldron01332 [email protected]

Honorary Secretary* Fiona ApthorpeGeldards LLP, DerbyTel: 01332 [email protected]

Honorary Treasurer*Susan WoodallAstle Paterson, BurtonTel: 01283 [email protected]

Immediate Past President* Sue JenningsTel: (M) 07946 609436 [email protected]

(* = Ex-Officio)

Parliamentary Liaison Officer (+) Julie Skill,ChesterfieldTel: 01246 231288; [email protected]

Public Relations Officer (+)

Vacant

Derby Junior Lawyers [+]Laura SephtonFreeth Cartwright LLPTel: 01332 [email protected]

Constituency Council Representative, Derbyshire (+)Michael WilliamsTel: 01298 [email protected]

(+) attend Committee by invitation

Other Committee Members

Scott AtkinsDerby School of LawTel: 01332 [email protected]

Tina AttenboroughAttenborough Law, DerbyTel: 01332 [email protected]

Janie BerryDerby City Council01332 [email protected]

Andrew CochraneFlint Bishop, DerbyTel: 01332 340211Via [email protected] Lionel ConnerSamble Burton & Worth, BurtonTel: 01283 565731 [email protected]

Paul HackneyGeldards LLP, DerbyTel: 01332 331631 [email protected]

David HardyTel: 01332 [email protected]

Elizabeth HaysomDerwent Law01332 [email protected]

Mary HoneybenElliot Mather,ChesterfieldTel: 01246 231288 [email protected]

Ben LawsonBen LawsonGeldards LLP, DerbyTel: 01332 331631

Karen ReynoldsFreeth Cartwright LLP01332 [email protected]

Lewis Rose, OBEFlint Bishop, DerbyTel: 01332 226127 [email protected]

Manesha [email protected]

Martin SaltMaclaren Warner, IlkestonTel: 0115 [email protected]

Mike SimpsonSimpsons Solicitors, Derby01332 [email protected]

Stephen WoolleyGeldards LLP, DerbyTel: 01332 [email protected]

Solicitors’ Benevolent Assoc. area representativePeter Lord9 Larkhill, Swanwick DE55 1DD Tel: 01773 541753

Administrator / Bulletin EditorPeter Ball,The Old BarnHatton Fields, Sutton Lane Hilton, Derbys. DE65 5GQ Tel/Fax: 01283 815030 e-mail: [email protected]

Sub-Committees(Secretary in italics)

Contentious BusinessVacantPaul Hackney Mary HoneybenDavid Hardy Karen ReynoldsGary Adamson (01332 347300)Rebecca Carr (01332 221722)Katy Fugle (01332 367051)Steven Savage (01246 220737)

Compliance Officers’ Group (COG)Vacant

Criminal LitigationSimon StevensAndy Cash Quentin RobbinsAndrew Oldroyd (01332 225225)Nick Wright (01332 364751)

Education & TrainingSue Jennings, & all Sub-Committee Secretaries

Employment and Business LawSue Jennings Tony Russell

Family LawFiona M K Apthorpe Diana CopestakeVince Beckworth (01332 372311)Melanie Brigden (01283 226444)Claire Dean (01335 345454)David Guthrie (01332 293293)Liz Guyler (01773 749955)Nick Herbert (01332 293293)Naomi Hickman (01332 364436)Ruth Jones (01332 346084)Fiona Lazenby (01332 346 111)Martina Longworth (01332 344221)Manesha Ruparel e-mail: [email protected]

Janine Hobday (01332 340221)Julie Skill (01332 372311)

FinanceSue Jennings, Andy CashDiana Copestake, Stephen Woolley, Arthur Titterton, Sue Woodall

Private ClientMartin Salt Claire Rudkin (01332) 340211Nikki Spencer (0115) 932 4101Christine Hinkley (01332) 836666Kim Kirk (01332) 600005Tim Dysterre-Clark (01332) 600005Kirsten Wood (01332) 340211Rachael Francis (01332) 340211Julie Cook (01332) 340211Dervla McLaughlin (0115) 932 4101

Property LawVacant, Sue Woodall, Adrian Crowther (01332 340211), Rachel Bale(01283 561531), Natalia Delgado (01246 231288), Sally Gill(01246 231288), Stephen Gordon (01246 270112), Michael Taylor(01773 822333), Hugh Walford (01773 823999), Elizabeth Wallis (01629 812613), Andrew Cross (01629 582308), Charlotte Rosser (01332 291431).

Professional/Regulatory PurposesSubsumed into the Full Committee –working groups to be convened according to the subject at hand.

Sole Practitioners’ Group (SPG)Tina Attenborough

(Last updated 1st Feb 2016)

Officers and Committee Members for 2015

www.derbylaw.net 5

Copestake’s Cogitations

How time flies!! It is nearly the end of my year and my handover to Andy Cash who I am sure will be brilliant in the role. It is definitely true that the older you get, the faster time goes! In my head I am still only mid-20s but everything else says otherwise!

Quite a bit has happened Since the last Bulletin. I referred in the last issue to the open meeting which was to be held on 16 February and that went

ahead as planned. About 25 lawyers attended which was encouraging and the general consensus was that the local law society should assist in the promotion of the legal services provided by solicitors in Derby (and the East Midlands) and promoting Derby as a centre of excellence in the field of legal services. We have many very good solicitors and other lawyers in Derby and the surrounding area – and not only within the larger firms that have now established themselves in the city - and there is no reason why large companies/wealthy clients should feel the need to go to London, Birmingham, Manchester etc, but we do need to work together, as a society and as a unit if I can put it like that, to promote ourselves as such. Marketing Derby continues to push Derby as a centre of excellence for business generally and it was agreed that we should try and co-ordinate with Marketing Derby and the University of Derby, which has grown in stature enormously since its birth and whose Law School is considered one of the best in the country, so that all three groups can benefit by attracting high calibre people to their respective business interests. I believe everyone left that meeting feeling rather more encouraged than we might have expected, and to that end myself, Andy Cash, Scott Atkins from Derby University and Mike Copestake on behalf of Marketing Derby are meeting towards the end of March to discuss how best we might be able to progress this. This can then be carried forward into Andy’s year. I am aware from speaking to Alan Radford, Secretary of the Nottinghamshire Law Society, that they are also endeavouring to do the same in Nottinghamshire and there may therefore be some room for a co-ordinated venture with them, and perhaps also with Leicestershire.

I attended the Leicestershire Law Society Dinner on 5 February at College Court, Leicester which was pretty well attended. The speeches were given by the former Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, who had actually just retired, and Professor Kevin Schürer who was part of the team who discovered the remains of Richard III in the car-park in Leicester. Both were extremely entertaining and apparently Tim Stevens had told the President of the Leicestershire Law Society, Mehmooda Duke, that he would speak provided she put on an Asian menu

- which she did and it was superb! Very different to the usual meal and extremely tasty.

I also attended the Derby University Law Dinner at The Cathedral Quarter Hotel on 23 January which was a great event attended by a number of local solicitors as well as students, the idea being to get the students used to attending such dinners as they may well have to attend the same during the course of their careers. I do believe it is important to maintain tight links with the University and those links seem to be growing each year.

We have, of course, had two very sad events since the last Bulletin – the death of both Michael Mallender who was a huge supporter of this society and also Arthur Willis who used to be senior partner at Flint Bishop & Barnett (as it was then). I was able to attend Michael’s funeral in Trusley and unsurprisingly, the little church was packed and there was standing room outside or in the adjoining Memorial Hall. As I started my legal career at Taylor Simpson & Mosley, I owe quite a lot to Michael and his fellow partners. It was fantastic to see George Drew and Robert Heelis at the funeral both looking exactly the same as I remember them! It was a very nice service – not at all flowery and just down to earth memories of Michael. Unfortunately I could not attend Arthur’s funeral as I was away skiing which is a shame as I did the majority of my four years articles (as they then were) at Flint Bishop & Barnett (plus two previous years as Bob Bendle-Moore’s conveyancing clerk) and I have very good memories of Flints altogether from those days – although everyone was terrified of Arthur!

Anyway, enough of Copestakes’ Cogitations for now – just to remind you all to get your tickets for the Annual Dinner on 29 April. I am sure Peter still has some tables/tickets to spare!

Di CopestakePresident, 2015-16

Experienced Cambridge and Oxford-trained consultant pathologist with particular interests in haematopathology (lymphomas, leukaemias),

cardiovascular pathology & autopsy pathology.

Expert Witness Certificate (Civil Law), Bond Solon / Cardiff University

• Biopsy Pathology (esp Lymphoma & Leukaemia)• Autopsy Pathology (esp Cardiovascular Pathology)• Professional Conduct (GMC work undertaken)

Elizabeth J. SoilleuxMA, MB, BChir, PhD, FRCPath

Consultant Pathologist

Dept. of Cellular Pathology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU

Tel: 07798 643879 Email: [email protected]

6 www.derbylaw.net6 www.derbylaw.net

Membership News

Nelsons’ new office entrance, with (l-r) Architect Sean Lyall, Nelsons Chief Exec. Tim Hastings, and Mike Thorne of property agents Innes England

Nelsons Solicitors has moved staff back into its original Sterne House city centre premises following an extensive 8-month refurbishment of the building. Staff based at Sterne House were temporarily moved out in July last year and were based at Moody and Woolley’s former premises in St Mary’s Gate . All staff have now moved back to Sterne House, on which Nelsons has signed a renewed long term lease Sterne House is a locally listed building that was originally Brown’s Barley Kernels Mill and dates from the late 1800’s.

NEW ERA FOR NELSONS SOLICITORS IN DERBY AFTER HIGH SPEC OFFICE REFURBISHMENT

Nelsons return to newly-refurbished offices in Sterne House.

Nottingham Legal Walk 2016

On behalf of the Midland Legal Support Trust (MLST) I would like to invite you to join us for the 2016 sponsored Nottingham Legal Walk on Monday 9 May from 5:00pm. The annual 10km walk around the sights of Nottingham takes place after work and will raise funds for local legal advice charities to support their work in helping vulnerable people in desperate need of advice. We would be delighted if a team from Derby & District Law Society was able to join us. Sign up your team nowAll we need is the name of someone in your organisation! Teams can be any size and there is no registration fee. Contact the organisers as below and we will send you some additional information (found on our website here) and create a fundraising webpage for you. Anyone can join the walk so we look forward to welcoming any friends, family, colleagues and pets!

If there’s any further information you need, or anything at all I can do to help please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes,Martha de la RocheFundraising and Development Manager, The Midland Legal Support Trust P.S. Remember, if you are a legal advice agency 100% of the funds you raise can be kept by your charity plus the MLST will match any funds you raise! Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7092 3973Office: The National Pro Bono Centre, 48 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JFwww.mlst.org.uk

The Midland Legal Support Trust is a company limited by guarantee (no. 06738666), and a registered charity (no. 1128045). Its registered office is at c/o Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue, Tachbrook Park, Warwick CV34 6BF.

Join us forTo raise money for free legal advice charities which help those most

in need

Monday 9th May

2016

www.derbylaw.net 7

Are lease negotiations between lawyers a thing of the past?SOME in the legal profession are writing the obituary of lease negotiations between lawyers, arguing that the adoption of a standard commercial lease will become the norm. Head of professional services at commercial property firm Innes England Steve Holland is not convinced. According to some, lease negotiations have a number of drawbacks; little is achieved during the process, it takes too long and there is a lack of profitability for lawyers. If little is achieved, that is probably a reasonable indication that the parties were equally well (or equally badly?) represented and the outcome is a fair one where neither party has caught the other out. But is that a reason to change the system? A Law Society pro forma lease has been in existence for years, but it is adopted very rarely. I do not see a waning in the desire of landlords or tenants to achieve more favourable terms than the next person. That is the competitive edge; the commercial survival instinct, and there is nothing wrong with that. I agree that the process often takes too long, or at least it does now. When I started out as a commercial surveyor in the early 1990s a typical deal would take around 28 days from Subject to Contract Heads of Agreement concluded by the agent to engrossment of a lease by the solicitors – it is now typically more like double that. In my experience the best way of minimising the time taken is to employ a lawyer with some commercial nous, capable of picking up the telephone when the need arises; I know a few. What caught my attention most is the complaint that no profit can be made by lawyers taking on that work; this sounds familiar. The surveying profession has for many years been its own worst enemy on fees, particularly where valuations are concerned. The requirements that must be satisfied from clients, government and regulatory bodies are so onerous and time-consuming and the liability so great that the work has in many cases become commercially unattractive. That is because, as a profession, we have undervalued our services and allowed fees to be driven down too far. The outcome in surveying, however, has not been for valuations to become standardised. It has been polarisation. Some firms maintain a reasonable minimum fee; others undercut and undercut. Given the resources and expertise to complete the task properly and reliably, those undercutting will sooner or later run out of money or indemnity insurance, or both. It is taking a while to wash through but ultimately it is an unsustainable trend, and not a pleasant journey to the end. My suggestion to friends in the legal profession is, therefore, allow the market to find its level, and be reminded of one of my favourite quotations, attributed to John Ruskin, “There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man’s lawful prey.” For more information or for more information, contact Annie Brafield, Amy Macdonald or Jennie Holland or on 0115 8532110.

Editor’s NoteInnes England commercial property agency has offices in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester. The agency manages sales, lettings, investments, disposals and acquisitions of all commercial property including office, retail and industrial. Expert teams provide additional asset management, consultancy and professional services.

Property

CLEAVER THOMPSON LTD, Solicitors

5 & 7 King Street, Alfreton, Derbyshire DE55 7AE

1. Experienced Personal Injury/Clinical negligence Solicitor/Legal Executive required

for busy Personal Injury Department due to rapid expansion; must be able to handle

own case load.

Please supply CV and reply to Andrew Botham - email address - [email protected]

Tel: 01773 522977 / 01773 832193•

2. Statement taker urgently required for busy Personal Injury Department.

Hours and days to suit.

Please contact Andrew Botham - email address - [email protected]

Tel: 01773 522977 / 01773 832193

Recruitment

Anderson Partnership Solicitors require an experienced, Conveyancing Assistant.

The applicant must have the ability to manage both Commercial

and Residential matters from initial instructions through to completion with minimum supervision.

The applicant will be client care focussed, hard working,

enthusiastic and possess good IT skills.

Salary negotiable and flexibility with hours by agreement.

Email applications, attaching personal statement and curriculum vitae, together with details of current salary to;

[email protected]


Council Member’s ReportMany solicitors have very cynical views of The Law Society and although such views are not entirely unjustified, there is a tendency to overlook the good things the Society does, eg. responding to issues like regulation of the profession, as you will have seen from the briefing paper previously circulated.

There is also a lot of good work done in reacting to draft Government legislation and lobbying politicians on issues such as the importance of legal professional privilege, to quote one current example.

The problem is that most of the good things The Law Society does do not immediately impact on the day to day running of high street practices, although if non-lawyers control standards of entry to the profession, as the SRA is proposing, high street lawyers will soon come to notice the unqualified and unregulated competition.

On the other side of the coin, since my first Council meeting last September, I have become convinced there are two major areas where change is needed. The current governance review gives the opportunity to do this and we must get it right on this occasion:-

1. There is no clear-cut line of command at the top of The Law Society above the Chief Executive. We have a President, Vice President and Deputy Vice President. Presidents hold office for one year only. Then there is the Management Board, which is chaired by someone else, and on which the three office holders sit ex-officio. The extent of its executive, as opposed to non executive duties and responsibilities, is not at all clear and there needs to be more “hands-on” control.

If we look at the debacle of Veyo, it is still not really apparent who should have been supervising it, and why no-one on Council could see the fatal flaws apparent to every experienced conveyancer to whom I and several other Council members have spoken. The project was allowed to proceed at great expense, and it seems that Council, having voted to go ahead, sat back and assumed (quite wrongly) that those responsible could just be left to get on with it without any check on their ability to do so.

The Law Society is a multi-million £ business. The way it is run needs to reflect this.

I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be a smallish group of Council members who are sufficiently executive to exercise proper control over the Chief Executive and his/her staff and to take responsibility if things go wrong ie. no more passing the buck. I think they will have to be prepared to give 20/25% of their time and therefore will have to receive some honorarium to compensate for taking a lower share of profits from their firm. I have in mind a figure of around £25,000 which, for a lot of people, would be substantially more than a reduction in profit share or salary if working only 75% or 80% of full time.

2. Communication with the profession is poor. I would be strongly opposed to reducing Council to a small group of the sort referred to above. The wider input of the profession is needed but the secrecy of Part 2 of Council meetings (papers which are strictly confidential and not for further circulation or discussion) needs amending in favour of full discussion with the profession, through

local Law Society committees and, in appropriate cases, other members of the wider profession to make sure there is proper feedback into the Chancery Lane decision-making process, before decisions are taken on things like Veyo. I am sure that if such a consultation had taken place before a final decision on that had been made, Council would not have voted to proceed and some several million pounds would not have been wasted.

The temptation for this process to be left to Law Society staff should be firmly resisted. A recent Gazette contained a full page advertisement for a “Director of Relationship Management” to work at Chancery Lane for a salary described as “competitive”. I suspect that this is part of the reorganisation of regional areas but propose to challenge Catherine Dixon at the next Council meeting.

By definition, Staff at Chancery Lane do not have the everyday experience of practice which is essential to understand issues in sufficient depth to make the consultation process worthwhile. Again, the example of Veyo illustrates this. There is all the difference in the world between solicitors attending roadshows and expressing an interest in principle when they are told a product is being developed which will be a “boon” to their practices on the one hand, and the reaction of experienced conveyancers when they actually consider the practical details of the project being proposed and realise this is not going to achieve what it claimed for it on the other.

At the time of writing this, I have not received the papers for the Council meeting on March 30th. I shall certainly try and make my views known at that and any subsequent meetings when the issue of governance will be discussed. The one benefit of the Veyo catastrophe has been that a number of minds have been focused on the need for real change, as some of the emails flying around as a consequence show.

Michael WilliamsCouncil Member, Derbyshire and E. Staffs.

Professional communications for professionals

www.epc.gb.com


Motoring Law

Recently I have suffered from a gammy knee and been told I have early cataracts in one eye, all as a consequence of “ageing”. Nevertheless I remain one of the best drivers I know, don’t I?

As the age profile of the country changes and the number of “senior” drivers increases it is perhaps unsurprising that there should be an increasing focus on the medical fitness of drivers as a key road safety issue. Disability has also hit the headlines after a sequence of tragic incidents involving drivers who have lost control of their vehicles as a result of illness or disability.

It is the DVLA in Swansea who deal with these issues and under regulations the Secretary of State has wide powers to refuse to grant, to suspend or to revoke all classes of licence. The aim is to avoid licences being held by those who might be a source of danger to the public.

In certain cases medical information is required before the grant or renewal of a licence. All goods vehicle licences require clear medical checks on application plus renewal

every 5 years. Ordinary driving licences require renewal at 70 with medical evidence and the every 3 years thereafter.

Our doctors and nurses are now told to be on the alert for people who may be likely to cause risk if they continue to drive. The Medical Unit at the DVLA will take a robust view of information they receive and often err on the side of caution by revoking driving licences and notifying drivers in writing of the revocation.

Diseases and disabilities justifying refusal are set out in the regulations and include; • severe mental disability, • sudden attacks of giddiness or fainting, or

liability to such attacks because of a heartcondition,

• persistent alcohol or drug misuse.

The regulations also list the parameters where partial loss of eyesight is an issue, the effect of diabetes and epilepsy and loss or deformity of limbs. As might be expected the rules are tighter for those holding Group 2 licences, such as lorry or bus drivers.

There is a duty on drivers and applicants to notify any condition or illness which might affect their driving.

Any decision to refuse or revoke can be appealed to the Magistrates Court under section 100 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, however if the disability notified is of such a nature as to leave the authority no alternative but to refuse the application then the applicant will not be able to appeal.

In practice we can often help in medical cases and it is not always necessary to lodge a formal appeal. Obtaining positive medical evidence and providing the DVLA medical unit with relevant information can often lead to changed decisions. For example, a GP may express concerns to the DVLA which can be resolved by a report from a client’s consultant on review.

If you have a client facing these problems, or considering their future on the road please feel free to get in touch at an early stage.

Andy CashCartwright King LLP

Editor’s note: If you would like to contribute an article or opinion piece for the benefit of member colleagues I would be pleased to receive it by email to [email protected].

‘It’s my age’

In Memoriam

www.derbylaw.net 11

We regret to report the passing of Michael Mallender, who died on 6 February 2016. He first joined Taylor Simpson & Mosley as an Articled Clerk in February 1963, becoming an Assistant Solicitor on admission in April 1965 and then becoming a Partner in 1968. He remained with

the same firm for 39 years before retiring as a Partner in April 2002, following which he continued to act as a Consultant.

During his long career, Michael primarily worked in trusts and estates, but also worked as Clerk to the General Commissioners of Income Tax for the Derby Division for over 30 years, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, who had been a commissioner back in the 1940’s. In addition to this role, Michael was a Canon at Derby Cathedral, a position he also held for many years.

Michael was well known in the community, taking an active role in local affairs, and took a keen interest in archaeology and the preservation of historic buildings. In particular, Michael could

always be relied upon to attend the Annual General Meeting of Derby and District Law Society every April, where he took a keen interest in the formal proceedings and showed that he had actually read all of the papers produced for that occasion. Appropriately, many of those meetings were held at Derbyshire Cricket Club where Michael spent many of his summer afternoons.

In later years, Michael remained as a Consultant when the firm of Taylor Simpson & Mosley became the Derby office of Elliot Mather LLP Solicitors in 2012. He only retired completely from practice in 2014, having spent over 50 years in the legal profession. However he remained active in his role as a Trustee for numerous estates and could be relied upon for his unerring memory of his clients’ dealings, often stretching back over decades.

He will be fondly remembered by many as a “gentleman”, who by his own admission was perhaps more suited to a pre-technological age and also something of a character. Our condolences go to his wife, Margaret, to whom he was married for over 50 years and who assisted him throughout his long career.

Mary HoneybenElliot Mather LLP

MICHAEL MALLENDER - 1941-2016

Arthur Willis, who passed away on February 14th after a short illness, will possibly be best remembered by many for his part as club solicitor, alongside then club chief executive Stuart Webb, in saving Derby County from a winding-up petition from the Inland Revenue in 1984 – a feat remembered in the Derby Evening Telegraph on the 30th anniversary in 2014.

He served as Managing Partner at Flint Bishop & Barnett (now Flint Bishop LLP) from 1974 to 1990 and a consultant for some years thereafter; current Managing Partner Andrew Cochrane says “Arthur was not just a litigator but an outstanding advocate. Flint Bishop would not be the firm in Derby that it is today without him. He was a true giant of the legal profession”

Arthur leaves a widow Muriel and two children Adrian and Amanda together with grandchildren and great grandchildren.

ARTHuR WILLIS

FORMER MANAGING PARTNER, FLINT BISHOP & BARNETT

12 www.derbylaw.net

DERBY & DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY CPD TRAINING PROGRAMME 2016

Details of dates and venues where not shown, and of further courses, will be added in due course

KEY* Intro =Introduction; Inter = Intermediate; Adv = Advanced; U = Update ** For further enquiries regarding booking or administration of CLT courses please contact CLT COURSE ADMINISTRATOR on 0121 355 0900 ** For enquiries/bookings for D&DLS Direct courses, or comments or suggestions for future courses please contact PETER BALL on 01283 815030. ** FOR D&DLS COURSES, PLEASE POST-DATE YOUR CHEQUE TO D&DLS WITH THE DATE OF THE COURSE

Blue indicates new/amended information, or an addition to the programme

D&DLS Members qualify for significant discounts on the above & other CPD courses & will receive details of CLT courses personally 4-6 weeks beforehand. FOR D&DLS Direct EVENTS SEE D&DLS Bulletin FOR DETAILS AND BOOKING FORM.

Area Course Title

CPD Hours Date Level* Venue Book Via**

2016 2016 2016 2016

Management / CPD Compliance

Continuing Competence:

Get Ready for the New Regime3 05/04/2016 Foundation Derby CLT

Commercial Property

10 Tricky Commercial

Property Problems6 22/04/2016 Update Derby CLT

FamilyActing for Parents in Care

Proceedings6 17/05/2016 Intermediate Burton CLT

Civil LitigationBoundary Disputes -

a Practical Approach6 tbc Intermediate Chesterfield CLT

Commercial Property

Commercial

Property Update3 23/06/2016 Update Derby CLT

Residential PropertyConveyancing

Update 20163 23/06/2016 Update Derby CLT

ProbateContentious Probate - Current

Issues & Problem Areas5 tbc Intermediate Derby CLT

Criminal Litigation

Hot Topics in

Criminal Evidence6 tbc Update Chesterfield CLT

Wills & Probate Wills & Probate Update 2016 5 tbc Update Burton CLT

Family Family Law Update 2016 6 21/10/2016 Update Derby CLT

Civil LitigationGetting to the Money - Proactive

Debt Recovery in 20166 tbc Update Burton CLT

PLEASE SEND THIS ENTIRE FORM TO: Peter Ball, Administrator, The Old Barn, Hatton Fields, Sutton Lane, Hilton, Derbyshire DE65 5GQ

Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………............................................

Firm: ……………………………………………………………………….…………………....…………………………….....................................................................................

Address / DX: ……………………………………………….…………………………….…………………………………………………………………………….........................................

Tel. No.: ………………………………………………………………............................................

Eail Address.: ………………………………………………………………...................................

Position Partner / Assistant Solicitor / Trainee / Legal Exec / Other (specify): ……………………………………...…………………….. ..................................

Suggestions for future CPD courses, especially for support staff:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What other services would you like to see this Society provide for the profession locally, you and/or your firm?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Signature: Date:

PLEASE NOTE: if you are booking an event for more than one person or for someone other than yourself, please indicate the name, position and membership status (member / non-member) of the attendees on this form or a separate sheet, and ensure that the VAT-inclusive fee paid is appropriate.

*Please make out a separate cheque payable to Derby & District Law Society for each separate event booked

Derby & District Law Society Event Booking Form

Event Date Venue Time CPD Members*Non-

Member solicitors

TOTAL FEE*

No. (incl VAT) No. @ (incl VAT)

ANNUAL DINNER

Friday April 29th

iPro Stadium,

Derby

7.15 for 7.45 pm - 1.00 am

n/a £45.00 £45.00

www.derbylaw.net 13


Social

Places are available on circular tables of 10, but there is no need to book a whole table as smaller parties are welcome. Dress code is black tie for gentlemen. To book places please use the booking form elsewhere in this Bulletin.

Please note that, as last year, all bookings must be confirmed and paid for 7 days before the event.

Dinner sponsors:

Annual Dinner 2016The Annual Dinner is the Society’s principal social event, and also marks the outgoing President’s ‘swansong’. It thus offers a great opportunity to give Di Copestake a good send-off, as well as to renew links with colleagues whom you may not have seen for some time, whilst eating and drinking well, being entertained – and exercising the calories off on the dance-floor!

This year’s Dinner will be held on Friday April 29th at the iPro Stadium, Derby, 7.15 for 7.45 pm til 1.00 am. Dancing from c.11.00 pm.

On arrival you will receive a welcome drink of Buck’s Fizz, and a complimentary bottle of red and white wine plus sparkling mineral water will be provided for each table.

Thanks to generous sponsorship from the Garrandale Group, Derby Law School and Severn Trent Services we are again able to hold the ticket price at £45.00 (£37.50 + VAT). Given that firms can reclaim the VAT, the Dinner is a real bargain at a net cost of £37.50 per person, so start planning your party NOW!

This year’s speaker is local auctioneer Charles Hanson, who in addition to his work as an auctioneer is also a popular after-dinner speaker, who will entertain us with tales from the saleroom, from his work carried out on various television antique shows and the current demand for such heirlooms at auction – you could find that your umbrella stand in the hall is a priceless Ming vase (well, we can all dream!).

Duo of SalmonCold, Poached & Own cured Dill and Sea Salt Salmonserved with a Cucumber and Tomato Salsa,finished with Micro Cress and LimeorLeek & Caerphilly Cheese Tart (V)served with Balsamic Dressing and Dressed Rocket—Pan Seared Supreme of ChickenSpinach & Sun-dried Tomato Mousse, Dauphinoise Potatoes,Rustic Carrots & Fine Beans, White Wine Sauceor

Spinach Gnocchi (V)Wild Mushrooms, Mediterranean Vegetables & Pesto Dressing finished with Parmesan Shavings—Gateau St. HonoréPastry base with Choux Buns filled withPatisserie Cream and BerriesorFruit Salad—Cheese & Biscuits—Tea / Coffee

• This Year’s Menu •


Legal Skills Triathlon 2016

On 2nd March, 8 university of Derby law students were paired with 8 trainee/newly qualified solicitors to take part in a challenging day testing their negotiating, advocacy and interviewing skills before panels of judges drawn from the university and the local profession.

This year’s judges included the original architect of the Triathlon, John Calladine, former President of D&DLS. Having recently retired as an Employment and Deputy District Judge, this was the first time John had been able to attend the event. Martin Salt, a solicitor with Maclaren Warner, also made his judging debut, having won the Triathlon as a student in its inaugural year. Many thanks to both John and Martin and also Simon Stevens of Eddowes Waldron (and Deputy Vice President of D&DLS), Stephen Woolley of Geldards, Manesha Ruparel, and Mary White of Elliot Mather for all giving up their valuable time to judge.

University of Derby student Lisa Lyden-Cowan was the outstanding performer carrying off the individual prize for negotiation and forming half of the overall winning team with Natalie Yeung of Geldards.

If you or your firm are unsure whether to participate in next year’s competition, listen to what some of this year’s entrants had to say: Natalie Yeung, a newly-qualified solicitor at Geldards: “I really enjoyed The Legal Skills Triathlon….. It is so important to be given an opportunity to develop key skills such as advocacy, negotiating and interviewing in a safe and friendly environment. I found the feedback I received very constructive and I know it will definitely assist me in practice.”

From 3rd year Llb student Lisa Lyden-Cowan: “I found the Triathlon to be an enjoyable and rewarding experience. Working

as part of a team with a newly qualified solicitor, we prepared for and then conducted a mock client interview, a negotiation and piece of advocacy. This gave us the opportunity to demonstrate key legal skills in front of members of the legal profession and receive feedback on our performance. The experience has certainly been beneficial in developing my skills for a career in the legal profession. “

Imagin Shore – also a 3rd year Llb student: “Participating in the Triathlon allowed me to meet many legal professionals and work directly alongside a solicitor trainee. As well as this, I was able to develop my practical skills and experience in advocacy, negotiation and client interviewing, all of which will assist me greatly in my future career.”

The Legal SkillsTriathlon celebrated its 10th year at a new venue and in the company of the original architect of the competition.

Winners Natalie Yeung (C) & Lisa Lyden-Cowan (R) receive their certificates from Scott Atkins (L)

Triathlon ‘16 Negotiator: Best Negotiator Lisa Lyden-Cowan

Triathlon ‘16 Third: Third-placed Natasha Sladen (Geldards) and student Marlene Munyani

C

www.derbylaw.net 17

Flint Zoe

Best team overall: Natalie Yeung (Geldards) and student Lisa Lyden-Cowan

Second overall: Stephanie Smith (Bradley & Jefferies) and student Imagin Shore

Third overall: Natasha Sladen (Geldards) and student Marlene Munyani

Best Advocate: Lucky Thandi (Cartwright King)

Best Negotiator: Lisa Lyden-Cowan (University of Derby)

Best Interviewer: Deborah Robinson (Cartwright King)

The all-day event was hosted by Sue Jennings, D&DLS Immediate Past President and Senior Law Lecturer, and Scott Atkins, Acting Head of Law in Derby Law School’s striking new home, One Friar Gate Square. The presentation ceremony was followed by a Judges’ Q & A session at which 5 members of the local judiciary took questions from the floor which proved to be an enlightening and entertaining experience.

Triathlon ‘16 Advocate: Best Advocate Lucky Thandi (Cartwright King)

Triathlon ‘16 Interviewer: Best Interviewer Deborah Robinson (Cartwright King)

Triathlon ‘16 Winners (2): Triathlon winners Natalie Yeung (Geldards) and student Lisa Lyden-Cowan

Triathlon ‘16 Second: Second-placed pairing Stephanie Smith (Bradley Jefferies) and student Imagin Shore

THE FULL RESULTS


Probate

The Government have recently announced plans to increase the fees for Grant of Probate applications. The proposals were announced in a consultation paper which was quietly released on 18th February 2016. The consultation period is short and runs until 1st April 2016.

At the moment applications to the Court for a Grant of Probate cost either £155 if you use a solicitor or £215 if you do it yourself. If the value of the estate is below £5,000 then there is no charge.

Under the new proposals the fee structure will be based upon the size of the estate and are as follows:

The jump from the current set fee of around £155/£215 for all estates to a charge of £4,000 for an estate worth £500,000 is quite

substantial. The changes will also see the ‘Help With Fees’ scheme scrapped for Probate matters which currently assists those with limited financial means to bring proceedings in Court.

Understandably, the proposal have caused a good deal of furore. The general consensus is that the Government already has in place its tax upon death, Inheritance Tax, and that the new fees are nothing more than an additional ‘stealth tax’. It is likely that the fee changes will also create difficulties for those estates where there is not a lot of cash but rich in property assets.

The changes are expected to raise approximately £250 million for the Ministry of Justice without the need to raise Inheritance Taxes. The money would go to the Courts and Tribunals Service. It is stated that the new system is fairer and helps people inheriting less than £50,000 although this has not prevented the Government openly admitting that this is not about rebalancing a charge but about straightforward revenue raising.

With the consultation period commencing at the same time that David Cameron confirmed the UK’s referendum on the E.U, the new proposals have slipped quietly under the radar with less chance of the matter being known to the general public as a whole before the changes come into force.

All in all, it could be another unfortunate burden grieving relatives will have to bear.

Martin SaltMaclaren Warner

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Proposals to Reform Fees for Grants of Probate

Estates under £50,000 will attract no fee.

Estates exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding

£300,000 will be charged an application fee of £300


£500,000 will be charged an application fee of £1,000


£1,000,000 will be charged an application fee of £4,000

Estates exceeding £1,000,000 but not exceeding


Estates exceeding £1,600,000 but not exceeding


All estates over £2,000,000 will be charged

an application fee of £20,000

www.derbylaw.net 19

Heir locators’ fees – Who should pay?

The process of administering most estates is relatively straightforward. Personal representatives (PRs), with or without professional help, collect in the assets and, having settled liabilities, pay what remains to the beneficiaries. Administration expenses such as the cost of the funeral and the professional fees of solicitors, estate agents, valuers and accountants are met by the estate.

However, sometimes there are problems identifying and/or locating those entitled to share in the estate. In such cases the PRs will rely on the services of professional genealogists, sometimes known as ‘heir hunters’. These firms are extremely good at what they do and will normally have little difficulty identifying and locating the beneficiaries. However, there are some problems for PRs in relation to paying for these services.

There are broadly two options available. The first is an agreement that the heir hunter should receive a share of the beneficiary’s entitlement, often called a ‘contingency fee’. The second is that the professional charges for their services, which may be on a fixed-fee arrangement or based on the time taken to complete the work (typically known as time and expenses).

No PR who instructs a firm on the basis of either time and expenses or a fixed fee service could be criticised

for having done so. On the other hand, there are risks associated with the contingency fee model.

Under a contingency fee model, once the heir hunters have located a beneficiary, they will ask him or her to sign an agreement instructing the PRs to pay a percentage of the beneficiary’s share in the estate to the heir hunter. It is not unusual for fees of 30% and more to be charged. Alternatively, the heir hunters might ask the PRs to sign an agreement stating that they will pay a proportion of the share of located beneficiaries to the heir hunter. Either way, the beneficiary is deprived of a proportion of their rightful entitlement.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a beneficiary deciding to share their entitlement with a third party (deeds of variation are commonly entered into to do exactly that) but in this instance the PR is imposing an obligation on the beneficiary to do so. It is difficult to see how this can be justified.

In an article on this subject in Private Client Business 293 (2005), Richard Wilson and Constance Mahoney of 9 Stone Buildings said:“In the authors’ view, whilst there is no authority which provides assistance on this point, it is possible that a beneficiary might successfully argue that the personal representative has acted in breach of duty

by appointing an heir locator on such a basis, and should be personally accountable for the share that the beneficiary has paid to the heir locator.”

PRs cannot require a beneficiary to agree to assign a share of their entitlement to the PR. Therefore, it must follow that an agent acting on their behalf must be similarly prohibited. There is also an issue as to whether PRs can properly disclose information about the estate to someone who is going to use that information to make a profit for themselves.

Clearly where beneficiaries have to be located, there are unavoidable fees involved and PRs are entirely justified in incurring such costs. However, they are in a fiduciary position and must act in the best interests of the estate. If services have to be obtained, the PRs should use the most cost effective method of obtaining them.

This is a difficult area of the law to interpret and practitioners should think carefully about how the work involved in tracing beneficiaries should be funded and where the costs should fall.

This is a redacted version of an article that was first published on Title Research’s website in February 2016. To read the full article, visit www.titleresearch.com.

Professor Lesley King, Private Client Head of Practice at The College of Law, Bloomsbury, looks at the options available to legal professionals and their clients.


MFlint Zoe

www.derbylaw.net 21

QB Master: Costs budgeting is starting to workCosts budgeting is starting to work in clinical negligence, a Queen’s Bench Master has declared as he expressed his doubts about the expansion of fixed fees.

Master Cook also said claims of more than £50,000 that could not be classified as lower value and before extending fixed costs beyond that figure, “the current costs regime should be reviewed and its effects should be subject to proper scrutiny and research”.

He added: “The inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that there is now a very strong momentum, perhaps an irresistible momentum, towards the introduction of fixed costs in civil claims. But, in my view, change should not be driven on the basis of out of date statistics and the short-term financial interest of the NHS.”

His speech to a seminar at 7 Bedford Row in London came almost exactly a year after another lecture at the chambers in which he had expressed concern about the burden of budgeting in clinical negligence cases.

With a backlog building up, costs budgeting was temporarily disapplied last year for clinical negligence cases and Master Cook said that, following the appointment of one extra full-time master and four deputy masters, it has resumed from this week, with waiting times for first case management hearings “reduced to a few months”.

He continued: “The experience of the clinical negligence masters is that there are now signs that parties are adapting to the costs management process. We are seeing a significant increase in the number of cases where budgets are agreed or where a number of the phases are agreed.”

“By requiring the parties to focus on the total budget per phase and requiring cash offers to be made where agreement cannot be reached, the arguments are more focused. This leads to shorter hearings and enables more efficient use of court resources.”

However, there were also “some unwelcome signs”, such as an increase in the number of litigants in person and of non-specialist firms attempting to move into the clinical negligence field, adding to the costs of the process.

Master Cook noted that the Department of Health consultation on clinical negligence fixed costs, which was initially due last autumn, has still not been published even though the planned implementation date of 1 October 2016 remains unaltered.

“It must also be worthy of note that the case for fixed fees was presented to the [Civil Procedure] Rule Committee by Mr Masterson of the commercial division of the Department of Health.”

“I would suggest that such a state of affairs is profoundly worrying and does nothing to instill confidence in the proposals. What I find particularly concerning is how the NHSLA’s concern over disproportionate costs in ‘lower value claims’, that is claims valued up to £25,000, has morphed into a proposal to fix costs in cases up to £250,000.”

The process of running a clinical negligence cases “has a cost which means that establishing a low-value claim will always proportionally higher than a more substantial claim. I would certainly be slow to describe a claim worth £50,000 to £100,000 a low-value claim”.

This applied also to Lord Justice Jackson’s recent call for the widespread adoption of fixed costs, although he agreed with Sir Rupert that introducing fixed costs for clinical negligence on their own would lead to unhelpful “Balkanisation”.

He concluded: “My own view is that, if this change is to come about, it must apply to all civil litigation; it must be gradual; we must start by extending the low-value part 45 scheme to all claims including the fast-track; there should be gradual extensions of fixed costs from £25,000 to £50,000 to say £150,000 and such extensions should be made in the light of experience; suitable uplifts must be agreed for difficult and complex claims such as clinical negligence, possibly in conjunction with some form accreditation scheme; alternatively, there must be some flexibility in rates (judicially controlled for difficult and complex cases); and there must be a robust and predicable mechanism to update rates paid to lawyers linked to actual costs in the real world…”

“In my opinion, a period of calm is called for before more radical change. We do not have a system of justice that is worthy of the name unless people can get effective redress.”

An NHS Litigation Authority spokesman said: “We would agree entirely with Master Cook with respect to his comments on the entry of non-specialists into the clinical negligence market and the difficulties this creates in the resolution of claims.”

“It is important that injured patients obtain access to justice at reasonable cost and that excessive costs are challenged appropriately in order to preserve NHS resources for patient care. This is why we have drawn attention to clear evidence of disproportionate costs being claimed, particularly on lower-value cases.”


Changing behaviour in the information ageRecently, I was lucky enough to attend a Legal IT conference having been invited to sit on a panel that included Pinsent Masons LLP and Addleshaw Goddard LLP. Much of the conversation was focused on how technology can be used to improve client relationships.

Amongst the many interesting insights, there were a few key points that clearly resonated with the audience, one of which was the issue of having to remember various logins for multiple websites that lawyers use every day. This raised a knowing chuckle amongst the audience who clearly identified with the problem of not having one central hub to access all their online processes. So why did the audience find this amusing?

Well, it’s due to our attitudes changing over the years, bringing new expectations. I believe that now, more than ever, people are conscious of which technologies are creating efficiencies and making their day to day lives easier and which are not. Nowadays technology has become completely embedded into society in a variety of ways, and we now expect to be able

to use technology in every aspect of our lives – personally, socially and professionally.

We are also more astutely aware of those technologies which we genuinely enjoy using in our personal lives, thus, it is only natural that we would come to expect a similar standard of this convenience in our professional lives too. Particularly with the advent of the internet, it is clear that our attitudes and expectations are continuously evolving with regards to technological change and that there will continue to be an increasing overlap between our professional and personal worlds.

In my opinion, one of the biggest changes to behaviour over the last 20 years has been the result of technology changes. We have come to expect ‘instant gratification’, or our need for everything to be easier, faster, flexible, and efficient, and to be at our fingertips. Some may argue that technology has turned humans into a lazy, lethargic species, however, I would counter that it is simply a shift in attitude, in that we now know there are smarter ways to achieve our goals, whether that’s at home or at work.

It used to be that we had to learn to adapt to technology, but today, technology is built to adapt to us. You will find it permeates our lives everywhere you look– just think smart thermostats that conserve energy, online shopping sites that tell you what other products you may ‘also like’, navigating a foreign city using Google maps, or even setting up automatic payments through online banking. So why wouldn’t we naturally expect this in our working lives too? We now co-exist with technology and going forward, we must adapt together to ensure a smooth evolvement and optimal efficiencies. Once this co-existence is noted and implemented in professional environments, the results will show why employing intuitive technology in the workplace is so essential.

This is why I believe that conveyancers must also evolve with technology, and that those in management must focus on satisfying the needs of those at the coalface to make their work lives easier and get staff working smarter, not harder.

Scott BozinisCEO, InfoTrack


Philanthropy Advice: Helping you to help your clientsLife is full of milestones and as your clients’ lifestyles and financial circumstances change, many will come to you for advice.

They may be:• selling a business• dealing with an inheritance• tax planning for retirement• writing their Will, or • thinking about their own legacy and how they’ll be remembered.

At these key moments, many of your clients may want to make a tangible difference to the lives of others and experience the joy and satisfaction of giving.

Many also want to go beyond national campaigns and charities and instead want help to find and fund the incredible work that’s happening on their very own doorstep, putting something back in to the communities where they have lived, worked, built their businesses and raised their children.

According to a recent report by the Charities Aid Foundation, two thirds of the UK’s wealthiest people think lawyers and other professional advisers could do more to cover the area of philanthropy as part of their work, with a particular demand for advice on tax benefits, understanding the social need and selection of causes and monitoring the impact of giving.

So if a client turns to you for philanthropic advice, you can turn to us.Foundation Derbyshire is Derbyshire’s Community Foundation, a local independent charity and vehicle for charitable giving that has been providing advice to individuals, families and businesses for 20 years and now manages over £6 million of charitable funds on behalf of our donors.

We take the time to understand your client’s charitable aims, what interests them and the level of ongoing involvement they would like. We then help them to establish a named fund, in life or through their Will. We can also accommodate existing Charitable Trust transfers, gifts of shares, land or property and corporate funds.

Through their named fund, your clients can then give to a wide variety of local charities, groups and worthwhile causes, now and for generations to come, while Foundation Derbyshire deals with all legal and regulatory requirements, fund administration, investment management and grant assessment and monitoring.

“I no longer have the administrative or legal burden of a charitable trust. We are still very much involved in the ‘nice bit’, however, deciding which applications are funded and reading the letters of thanks from the young people and groups we have helped.” - Foundation Derbyshire Fund Holder

Giving through the Foundation is rewarding and local. Donors can even visit the projects that they have funded and see the impact of their generosity right now, safe in the knowledge that their charitable objectives will continue to be honoured in perpetuity.

Our Donors’ Funds make hundreds of grants every year, to community and voluntary groups, supporting the most vulnerable in our society and helping to enrich the lives of many more.

A fund can support the area where your client lives, a local charity they have been involved with, or a cause they care about. Or they could leave it up to our Trustees to meet the most pressing needs in the community.

“Following his death…I now derive a great deal of comfort from the fact that he was instrumental in establishing his legacy to the area he loved so dearly and was able to witness the impact of his generosity before he died”. - Son of Foundation Derbyshire Fund Holder

If your client has already established a charitable trust but is now struggling to recruit trustees or identify beneficiaries, we have a significant track record in Charitable Trust Transfers. We have revitalised over £1.45 million of trust funds that were either moribund, dormant or at risk of becoming inactive, as part of an initiative that is welcomed and supported by the Charity Commission.

We are also a registered charity, enabling your clients to take advantage of tax breaks, such as Gift Aid. Clients can also contribute to their fund over time or as a one off donation, depending on their tax planning requirements.

Clients who establish a named Fund in their Will can benefit both those in need and also their own families, by reducing the amount of Inheritance Tax payable on their estates. Charitable donations are taken off the value of an estate before IHT is calculated and an estate can pay IHT at a reduced rate of 36% on some assets (instead of 40%) if 10% or more of the estate’s ‘net value’ is left to charity.

If you have clients that want to turn their change in circumstance into a life changing opportunity, we’d be delighted to talk to you.

For further information about Foundation Derbyshire and how we can help you to help your clients, please contact Rachael Grime on 01773 514851 or at [email protected].

Rachael Grime Chief Executive, Foundation Derbyshire

The Challenge for University Law SchoolsThe current climate is particularly challenging for university Law Schools. The government’s policy on tuition fees coupled with its policy on controlling student numbers makes recruitment of good quality students an issue for many law schools. In addition the emphasis on A-level grades as a criterion for opening admissions (this year there was a free for all on those students with AAB, next year it is suggested the free from all extends to ABB students) means that entry is becoming progressively more difficult for those nontypical students who may well be able to benefit from the opportunities offered.

Allied to this and increasing the challenge (or increasing the opportunities), is the fact that the Legal Education Training Review is due to report next year which may well bring in a whole new framework for qualification and post-qualification training. As yet there is little indication as to the way the review will jump but it is expected that the changes will be extensive.

This means that in the near future it is going to be essential that to remain successful law schools are going to have to change the structure of the courses and the way that they deliver them. This means a reimagining of the law school to ensure that it delivers an education which is both relevant to the needs of its major end-user i.e. the legal profession but yet retains sufficient flexibility for students who do not intend to practice as lawyers (around 50% of the typical intake).

Increasingly employers are looking to the work experience of students as a way of differentiating between applicants for

training contracts. Whilst most providers will use case studies within the professional routes, the case for clinical legal education is becoming irresistible.

To that end at Huddersfield we opened a law clinic, staffed by students, in January 2013. This differs from many other offerings in that not only do students gain hands-on experience of dealing with clients and their problems but in addition they are also part of a major research project which studies the psychology of learning within that clinical environment. This is being supported by a joint research grant shared between the Law School and the Department of Psychology. The clinic concentrates on the unmet legal need within the local area and refers cases on to a network of local firms when appropriate.

Dealing with the postgraduate needs of the practitioner, we developed an MBA in Legal Practice in 2013 which is structured specifically to the needs of partners and those aspiring to manage legal firms. This is delivered in conjunction with the Management, Accountancy and Marketing streams within the Business School. With its flexible delivery channels and closely relevant content it has proved extremely attractive to current practitioners.

We are however in a very fluid situation successful law school will need to be flexible and able to respond fast to a changing environment and the changing needs of the profession and the student.

Sean Curley PgDip(Law), LL.M, FHEA

www.derbylaw.net 25

26 www.derbylaw.net

When considering a property, home buyers don’t usually give the highest priority to drainage assets and water pipes. Hidden below ground and out of sight, it’s really easy to overlook their importance. A property’s value, title and maintenance costs, however, can be directly and in some cases, adversely, impacted by issues relating to these assets.

Geodesys offers the CON29DW for all properties in England and Wales, so we are well aware of the costly oversights that could have been identified, had purchasers used a CON29DW search instead of alternative water and drainage searches, commonly known as Personal or Regulated Drainage and Water Searches.

CON29DW: setting the standardThe Law Society introduced the CON29DW to provide a nationally uniform approach to the provision of property-specific water and drainage information. With 23 standard questions it is the only drainage and water search mentioned by the Law Society in its handbook and is supported by a robust and underwritten guarantee that protects home purchasers and their legal advisor(s).

CON29DW: key benefits4 Unlimited liability on residential property transactions 4 Updated as soon as drainage and water legislation changes4 Regular legislation and product updates keep users up to date with improvements and legislation changes4 Monitored by the Drainage and Water Searches Network alongside The Law Society4 Swift turnaround – Personal Searches can take up to five days longer!4 Drainage and water expertise provided at no extra cost to investigate issues arising from a CON29DW, both pre- and post-sale

Should I choose a CON29DW or a Personal Search? Can your clients afford the cost, time and disruption to deal with drainage and water issues? Personal Searches do not tend to include answers to all 23 of The Law Society questions, and instead offer insurance to cover unanswered questions. As issues only tend to come to light once the buyer has moved in, the new owner then has all the difficulties of dealing with the problem retrospectively.

In contrast to other drainage and water searches, choosing the CON29DW gives the FULL picture. You have all the facts up-front ensuring that transactions can proceed in the full knowledge that any risks have been properly identified.

Call in the Geodesys experts!At Geodesys, our internal experts are dedicated to producing the most accurate picture they can for you and your clients. If questions regarding the location of assets are raised either during our checking process or after you receive the search, we do our utmost to find out what’s really going on, including visits to the property.

Geodesys offers the CON29DW throughout England and Wales, turn around over 95% of CON29DW searches within three days and offer in-house training/CPD on drainage and water.

Drainage and WaterAre you getting the full picture?

For more information contact Paul Smith, Geodesys Client Account Executive on 07764 987259 or [email protected] and start getting the full picture!

www.geodesys.com/con29dw

WHAT’S THE RISK?

A CON29DW search indicated that the property was connected to the public sewer. In reality, there was no sewer connection and sewage drained into an old septic tank. This was only discovered when the tank backed up causing nasty leakage into the homeowner’s garden! Resolving the issue and connection to the public sewer would have cost the owner around £10,000.

Fortunately, the underwritten guarantee on the CON29DW meant that Geodesys arranged and paid for connection to the public sewer, as well as removal of the old tank and waste, and re-landscaping of the garden.

If you are not ordering a CON29DW on behalf of your clients, we strongly advise you to check the level of liability provided by your search provider and how their insurance works regarding unanswered questions in the search.

Would you want an overflowing septic tank in your garden?

Two more reasons to mediate

28 www.derbylaw.net

With the constant demand for my services as a forensic accountant and expert witness, in a wide variety of cases from High Court

commercial cases through judicial review and arbitration to family matters and the occasional criminal case, one may think that litigation trundles on in the same way as before Lord Woolf’s Access to Justice research up to 1999. But that can’t be the case; the number of cases listed in the High Court has fallen dramatically in recent years, and it is certainly no longer the case that there is no alternative to the court for settling disputes.

Mediation is certainly becoming more popular. I achieved my 100th mediation recently: hardly a record, since some full-time mediators have done thousands; but a great many more than the significant number who have done only a handful, or can’t even get going.

Now we have news of two further ways in which the courts and very senior judges are encouraging mediation, even more forcefully that when my friend Sir Alan Ward was so scathing in his judgments about those who had wasted thousands in costs instead of calling on a mediator to help resolve their disputes – remember the Audi TT 3.2 quattro in Egan –v- Motor Services (Bath) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1002?

The first development is that Rupert Jackson, Jackson LJ, gave a speech to the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association (why them?) on 28 January 2016 in which he set out his recommendations for a fixed costs procedure for fast track claims up to £25,000, and in “the lower reaches of the multitrack” for claims up to £250,000. The detailed cost limits he proposes would keep a tight check on each stage of the proceedings. For the lowest and highest claim values recommended, the scale is as shown.

Such a scale would do away with detailed assessment hearings (though one could still expect applications for costs where there has been a refusal to mediate) and the scale deals only with recoverable costs; a party may spend as much money as they like, but any excess would be at their own expense.

There is a clear intention to restrict the numbers of witnesses and experts, and to reduce both preparation and the length of trials; for example, with a claim up to £50,000, only £95 per day may be recovered for a low value trial after day 5.

But there is another clear intention, and it is the same as Lord Woolf preached a fortiori: get on with the case at the early stages, but then make every effort to mediate before you are embroiled in a case for which the costs run to far more than can be recovered.

The second development is that in costs proceedings the NHS Litigation Authority were penalised with indemnity costs in two cases, for refusal to mediate. In Bristow –v- The Alexandra Hospital Trust (HQ12X02176) it had to pay indemnity costs for the assessment hearing, and in Reid –v- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC B21 (Costs) it had to pay indemnity costs from the date when the claimant issued an invitation to mediate. Irwin Mitchell say they have another 100+ costs cases against the NHSLA where the invitation to mediate was not accepted.

Ultimately, it is our money as taxpayers which is being wasted. I read the other day that the total deficits of NHS trusts nationally this year may run to £2.2billion – that’s £2,200,000,000. I know that agency doctors and nurses are expensive, but there must be a better way of settling clinical negligence claims. Can there really be an excuse not to mediate, when to do so would result in a significant reduction in the National Debt?

Chris Makin

[email protected] www.chrismakin.co.uk

Biog: Chris Makin was one of the first 30 or so chartered accountants to become an Accredited Forensic Accountant and Expert Witness – see www.icaew.com. He is also an accredited civil & commercial mediator and an accredited expert determiner. He has performed about 100 mediations, given expert evidence at least 100 times and worked on a vast range of cases over the last 25 years. For CV, war stories and much more, go to www.chrismakin.co.uk.

Chris Makin

www.derbylaw.net 29

FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS

Peter M Swann FAE FFS

Independent Consultant to the Legal Profession

A former Home Office Adviser with five decades experience in all aspects of finger print and crime work.

A Fellow of the Academy of Experts, a Fellow of the Fingerprint Society, a Member of the International Association for Identification, a Member of the Forensic Science Society and included in the UK Register of Expert Witnesses.

Provides a full independent fingerprint service to legal profession, industry and other agencies.

Telephone: Wakefield 01924 264900 (Office) 01924 276986 (Home)Fax: 01924 265700

Email: [email protected]

ExaminationDevelopment

AssessmentReport

BriefingExpert Witness


MFlint Zoe

d&dls 61

Documents