Member News

ILM Level 3 Certificate in First Line Management.

The ILM Level 3 Award in First Line Management, ILM Level 3 Certificate in First Line Management is a qualification that has been specially designed to give practising or aspiring first line managers a solid foundation in their formal development as a manager.

The Certificate provides a more comprehensive programme that builds and broadens the skills and knowledge gained in the Award (please note candidates may join the Certificate directly and are not required to undertake the Award as a prerequisite). Here organisational change is explored, giving participants a deeper understanding of this critical workplace issue and providing them with the tools to plan for and deal with organisational upheaval. The crucial skill of time management is also explored in the fourth mandatory unit for the Certificate.

Level 3 Certificate in First Line Management

• Minimum 20 credits
• Minimum 120 hours
• Completion within three years
• Induction – two hours
• Tutorial support – at least four hour
• Four mandatory units with a combined credit value of 7
• Optional units with a minimum total credit value of 13
• Work-based assignment, plus
• Change management report

Depending on the units selected, a choice of: work-based assignments, reflective reviews, knowledge reviews, oral presentations, role-play/scenarios, written reports or centre-devised alternatives.There are no formal entry requirements but participants will normally be practising or aspiring first line managers with the opportunity to meet the assessment demands and have a background that will enable them to benefit from the programme.

For pricing details or further information, advice or guidance please do not hesitate to contact us on contact us on 01603 610586.

also available:ILM Level 3Award in Leadership and Management

Lexia Media is delighted to have celebrated the launch of its charity book, 100 Women in 100 Words.

The book, which celebrates inspirational women from across Norfolk and Suffolk, was officially launched at a celebratory event on September 5th.

More than 50 of the featured women attended the event to be presented with a copy of the book and a bottle of fizz, courtesy of Adnams.

The project – proceeds from which will go to the East Anglian Eve Appeal – was created by Lexia Media, which has offices in Norwich and Woodbidge,and saw the agency flooded with nominations from proud colleagues, family members and friends of inspirational women.

Each featured female is now celebrated within the book in a summary of 100 words with a photograph.

Lexia Media managing director Deborah Watson said: “The project started as a low-key discussion about how we could celebrate women from this region in a way which would mark the centenary of International Women’s Day.

“It evolved into an idea which takes the modern communication approach of us all writing in shortened form in texts and tweets, and putting that into a book which would capture great businesswomen, carers and educators.

“We really are thrilled with the level of nominations we received and are just looking forward to the project helping us to raise a significant amount of money for a female-specific cancer charity.”

Gabrielle Neal, chairman of Eve Appeal East Anglia, said: “I am delighted to have been asked to feature in a very flattering book celebrating what I, and I suspect ninety-nine others, thought was just a case of ‘getting on with life and doing something we each enjoy’.

“In 2008, my life was brought into sharp focus with the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Having undergone a successful radical hysterectomy, I was eager to find a way of ensuring that other women would receive the advice and help needed in order to get an early diagnosis of any one of the five gynae cancers. That led me to the Eve Appeal and I am delighted that the funds from this book will assist that cause.”

Many of our clients have required advice regarding the recent website cookie laws and now that the dust has settled we have taken a look at how companies have interpreted the new law in our article Cookie Ruling Roundup.

The new ICO rules were not very clear regarding the use of Google Analytics on sites which uses cookies and our article Cookies, the ICO, and what you need to know is our interpretation of the rules. I hope you find this uesful and we would appreciate your views or experiences on this or if you would like to find out more please contact me, Mark Ellaway on 01603 513080

Steeles Law Head of Planning & Environment David Merson looks at the Coalition’s proposals to revise the rules governing householder development as part of the Prime Minister’s growth plan.

David Cameron has announced that he is “more determined than ever to cut through the dither that holds this country back”.

The Coalition is apparently “… determined to cut through the bureaucracy that holds us back. That starts with getting the planners off our backs, getting behind the businesses that have the ambition to expand, and meeting the aspirations of families that want to buy or improve a home”.

He is therefore planning an emergency three year-long free-for-all in house extensions allowing homeowners to build up to eight metres into their gardens without local council planning permission.

The proposals have been flagged up in a Ministerial Statement issued today by Eric Pickles.

The temporary relaxation of the permitted development rights regime is proposed to remove unnecessary cost and time delays to people’s improvement plans because at present planning permission is required for any change to a home that extends more than three metres from the property’s rear wall in the case of a terraced property and four metres in the case of a detached property.

The consultation paper has not as yet been issued so precise details are unavailable but it is understood that it is now proposed that during the relaxation, householders will be able to build single storey extensions to extend to six or eight metres beyond the property’s rear wall, depending on whether it is a terraced or detached property. Existing restrictions will continue to apply in Conservation Areas.

Further changes are also being promoted in respect of the expansion of business premises to allow shop expansion by 100 sq m and industrial units by 200 sq m up to the boundary of the premises.

There is also a U-turn on recently shelved plans to allow the change of use from commercial to residential purposes, without the need for planning permission subject to an “opportunity for authorities to seek a local exemption where they believe there will be an adverse economic impact”.

The removal of some limited householder planning control in respect of extensions and conservatories in well-to-do suburbs is unlikely, in itself, to solve the current economic crisis given the difficulties with bank lending and the ability to fund such development.

There must however be some concern about first, the short term impact that it will undoubtedly have on relations between neighbours who have different views on the impact of any development proposals that might come forward and second, the longer term impact of any unrestrained development on the places in which people continue to live and work.

Unrestrained shop and industrial extensions of the magnitude proposed could have significant long term implications although no ‘adverse economic impact’ exemption is apparently proposed for this proposal.

If you require further information or advice on any issues raised in this article or any other planning & environmental matter please contact David Merson on 020 7421 1720 or dmerson@steeleslaw.co.uk

A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) illustrates how an employer can take steps to prevent a breach of trust and confidence that may otherwise give rise to a claim for constructive dismissal. Employment Principal Lorna Townsend reports.

In this case, the employee worked as a chef in a pub. He was suspended from work by his manager and invited to an investigatory meeting on the grounds that he had not turned up for work when he had been asked to do so. At the investigatory meeting, it was established that the employee was on authorised holiday at the relevant time. As a result, it was decided that no further action should be taken.

The employee raised a grievance about the way he had been treated by his manager. He then attended two return to work meetings at which various options for his return were discussed, but he subsequently resigned as a result of his treatment by the manager and the company. His grievance was not concluded, on the basis that he had refused to return to work.

The employee’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not upheld. The tribunal agreed that the manager’s actions were inappropriate and over-reactive, and concluded that they were likely to damage the relationship of trust and confidence with the claimant. However, the tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had prevented the manager’s conduct from constituting a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence entitling him to resign and regarding himself as constructively dismissed. In its investigation of the disciplinary matter, the respondent had accepted the claimant’s version of events and stated that no further action would be taken. He was also offered the option of transferring to another pub to work with a different manager.

The EAT has now dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the tribunal’s decision. It has emphasised the distinction between a fundamental breach of contract that an apology by the employer cannot cure, and there being action by an employer that can prevent a breach of contract taking place. In this case, the “fair minded” way in which the investigatory meeting proceeded meant that it prevented the matter escalating into a state of affairs that would have justified the claimant leaving and claiming he was constructively dismissed.

Comment This case provides a good example of how, in following a fair procedure, the employer has avoided the escalation of a dispute into circumstances giving rise to a fundamental breach of contract.

As the EAT points out in its judgment, the whole object of a grievance procedure and a disciplinary procedure is that the employee has the opportunity to articulate his concerns about the behaviour of management, and to defend himself against allegations that in some way he is unfit to remain in the employment of the employer.

If an employer acts fairly and reasonably in following such procedures, it will often be able to prevent a fundamental breach of contract occurring, meaning that the employee will have no grounds for claiming constructive unfair dismissal.

A copy of the EAT judgment is available here

4myschools are at the Festival of Social Enterprise on Tuesday 11th Sept- looking to share the benefits of sustainable social enterprise locally for schools, teachers and children.

We are looking to find a franchisee to run their own values based businessfor Norfolk schools and teachers.

Speakers at the event include Nigel Kershaw CEO Big Issue, Cliff Prior CEO UnLtd, Sara Burgess the CIC Regulator.If there is anybody interested in Social Enterprise in Norfolk then this is the place to be.

We would be delighted to share our experience with anybody interested in making a difference through social enterprise.

see: www.festivalofsocialenterprise.co.uk for more details

Venue: The Forum Norwich – Please come and have a chat with us.

Kind regards

Mark

Breakwater have formed a partnership with the American company, Aruba. Aruba Networks specialise in wireless technology including wireless LAN switching, remote networking and network management.

Aruba networks are a leading provider of next generation solutions for network access to the mobile markets. Breakwater recognised that more and more businesses need wireless capabilities to perform regular tasks and quickly identified Aruba as an ideal enterprise to form alliances with. Aruba successfully worked on many major projects including Heathrow, Terminal 5, where their technologies are now in full force. The solutions Aruba can offer dramatically lowers operational costs but greatly improves productively for remote workers, guest access and all of today’s mobile business professionals.

Who uses Aruba?

• Five of the world’s top engineering schools • More than 500 major retail chains worldwide • Three of the world’s largest software companies • Every major social networking company • Over 30 of the world’s largest stadiums and sports arenas • The most widely deployed wireless LAN by the U.S. military

Aruba are based in California, USA, but have operations globally. Breakwater are proud to be the only partner locally and are delighted to be able to offer the solutions to their customers.

Following a previous article by Jean Parkinson published in the Solicitors Journal which outlined the proposals to crackdown upon residential squatters, the bill has now been passed.

As of 1 September 2012 it will become a criminal offence to squat in a residential property, whether it is vacant or not, with those found guilty at risk of a maximum six month term of imprisonment, a fine of £5,000, or both.

Whilst many will argue that it places pressure and further stigma upon those who might be vulnerable and in need, the rights of homeowners have firmly been placed to the fore in providing them with a better set of armoury with which to protect their properties.

If you require further information or advice on any issues raised in this article please contact Jean Parkinson on 020 7421 1720 or jparkinson@steeleslaw.co.uk

Ashton KCJ Solicitors is delighted to announce a number of new Associate appointments from within the firm.

Seven members of staff across a range of departments have been appointed as Associates, having successfully completed Ashton KCJ’s Development Programme. This involved a structured learning programme delivered by some of the UK’s best trainers, course work and 360 degree feedback.

Congratulations go to Sharon Allison and Julie Crossley from the Clinical Negligence team in Thetford, Sue Bailey and Elisabeth Sneade from the Family department in Norwich and Cambridge respectively, Ian Barnard in the Ipswich Commercial Property team, Tom Ranson from the Personal Injury team in Ipswich and Robert Tiffen, who works within the Dispute Resolution team in Norwich.

Ashton KCJ’s Chief Executive, Simon Smith says: “We are delighted to announce these appointments, which are richly deserved. They follow a number of commercial solicitor appointments and the acquisition of franchise specialists, John Chambers & Co earlier this year. This underscores the strength and growth of the firm as we approach the first anniversary of our merger in October.”

Employment solicitor Sam Greenhalgh reports on a recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which considers when it is appropriate to identify a ‘pool’ from which employees are selected for redundancy.

The employer in this case, a golf club, decided to make its club steward redundant in order to save costs. The employer consulted with the employee and subsequently confirmed his redundancy following a number of meetings with him. His duties, which included the management of the bar area, were to be undertaken by other members of the catering and bar staff.

The employee brought a claim for unfair dismissal, which was upheld by an employment tribunal. The tribunal concluded that in making the club steward redundant, without considering whether to identify a pool of employees from which to select for redundancy, was not within the “range of reasonable responses” required for the dismissal to be fair.

The employer appealed to the EAT. The EAT confirmed that there is no requirement to identify a pool for selection in a redundancy situation, and it might be perfectly reasonable for the employer to consider a single employee for redundancy. The tribunal in this case had failed to consider whether, given the nature of his job as a club steward, it was reasonable for the employer not to consider identifying a wider pool of employees from which to select. The employer’s appeal was upheld and the case remitted for a rehearing.

Comment

There is no requirement to follow a selection process in a redundancy situation, in circumstances where an individual’s role is no longer required and they are the only person carrying out that role. Provided the employee is properly consulted with prior to confirming the redundancy, the dismissal will be fair. However, it might still be necessary as part of the consultation process to consider whether it is appropriate to ‘bump’ another employee, making them redundant instead in order to retain the services of the employee whose role is no longer required.

If a number of employees carry out similar duties, then it will be more appropriate to identify a pool of employees from which to select for redundancy.

A copy of the judgment is available here

Steeles Law Head of Real Estate Michael Fahy and Trainee Solicitor Laura Tanguay consider the High Court decision of Kettel v Bloomfield [2012] EWCA 1422 (Ch) on the right to use car parking spaces and the landlord’s ability to reallocate spaces.

The Claimants in this case held leasehold interests in eight flats in a development known as City Walk. Each lease granted the tenant the right to park in a designated parking space.

The freehold owner of City Walk obtained planning permission to build a new housing block; the location of which would be in the same spot as the parking spaces. The landlord therefore wrote to each tenant to explain that their parking spaces were being reallocated and promptly fenced off the area.

The tenants did not consent to their parking spaces being moved and sought an injunction to restrain the landlord.

Type of ‘right’

The first question considered by the court was the nature of the right granted. Did the parking spaces form part of the property demised by the lease, or did the tenants merely have easements to use the spaces? The distinction was important as the extent of the rights granted determined the extent of the landlord’s limitation in developing the land. If the spaces formed part of the demise, the landlord would be prevented from building on them or even in the airspace above them.

The court held that the terms of the lease did not amount to a demise of the car parking spaces.

The case law on whether or not a right to park a car can exist as an easement is far from clear. The rule established in the case of Batchelor v Marlow [2003] 4 All ER 78 stated that a right to park a car could not be an easement if it left the servient owner without any ‘reasonable use’ of his land. However, the subsequent decision of Moncrieff v Jamieson [2008] 4 All ER 752 criticised the ‘reasonable use’ test and held that the correct test should be whether the servient owner retains “possession and control” of the land subject to the reasonable exercise of the easement.

However, the court in this case confirmed that it was obliged to apply the ‘reasonable use’ test as set out in Batchelor. It was held that the rights did not deprive the landlord of all reasonable use of the land – the landlord could cross the space, enter the space to maintain or resurface it, lay conducting media under the space and install overhead projections such as wires. The rights were therefore upheld as easements.

Movement of the spaces

None of the leases expressly stated that the landlord could move the spaces and the court held that no such right could be implied. The court looked to the case of Greenwhich NHS Trust v London & Quadrant Housing Association [1998] 1 WLR 1749 in confirming that the landlord could not unilaterally extinguish an easement by providing an equivalent easement.

Remedy

The landlord argued that damages were an appropriate remedy as the loss was, in his opinion, trivial given that the tenants would be given spaces new only yards away. However, because the landlord had not made the offer of new spaces in a way that would be binding, the court held that it had sought to escape the burden of the rights granted and consequently allowed the injunction.

Practical solutions

If a tenant has a right to park in a designated parking space there is no right to reallocate the space, even if the new space is only a short distance away and equally as convenient. The safest course of action is to grant parking rights in relation to spaces ‘designated by the landlord from time to time’

If you require advice on any issues raised in this article please contact Michael Fahy on 020 7421 1720 or mfahy@steeleslaw.co.uk.

Norwich firm of solicitors, Leathes Prior, have sponsored Jack Coxall, a teenager from Frettenham, for his sponsored 130-mile bike ride on 1 & 2 September 2012 from Norwich to Great Ormond Street Hospital. Jack suffered serious injuries to his pancreas and spleen in December 2009 and was in Great Ormond Street Hospital for six weeks. As a result of ongoing complications he is now unable to pursue his preferred career in the army and missed a substantial amount of school.

Dave Richards, the personal injury solicitor at Leathes Prior acting for Jack, is particularly impressed that he has come so far. “Jack really has made exceptional progress since I took on his case. I would not have believed that he would go on to do a 130-mile bike ride when I first heard about what happened, but it really is a credit to him and to Great Ormond Street Hospital, and it’s great that he’s decided to give back like this”.

Whilst Jack was lying in Great Ormond Street Hospital, he said to himself that once he recovered he would raise money for the hospital itself, as a way of giving something back. He has since endured a long recovery process but is now confident that he can complete the journey.

His mother, Samantha Coxall, is naturally very nervous for Jack, but at the same time has expressed how proud she is of him, after everything he has been through.

To sponsor Jack, visit www.justgiving.com/JackJourney